/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| Dear,
| Fine so for this special purpose, I propose to add a p:map-ports
| map-ports = element p:map-ports { p:port+ }
| port = element p:port { attribute base-uri { xsd:anyURI }, (p:pipe |
| p:document | p:inline) }
| I know it is a strong requirement, but I want to start discussion to
| see where are the acceptable limits for every one
| The idea behind it to give to the component a mapping it could use for
| its URIResolver to link to accessible content that could be defined in
| the pipeline. The reason why, I let p:document and p:inline is that it
| could be useful to have such a way to make XProc aware of what could
| be in use.
| Any thoughts ?

I think this is too pervasive a change for V1.

It would require that pipeline processors have the ability to interact
in a very concrete and intimate way with the underlying URI resolver.
We know that there will be implementations that have no resolver at
all. Even those implementations which do have a resolver may not have
access to an API for that resolver which gives them sufficient control
to implement this proposal.

I think for V1 all we can say is that the behavior of, and even the
existence of, a URI or entity resolver is implementation-dependent.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | In a universe of electrons and selfish
http://nwalsh.com/            | genes, blind physical forces and
                              | genetic replication, some people are
                              | going to get hurt, other people are
                              | going to get lucky, and you won't find
                              | any rhyme or reason in it, nor any
                              | justice.--Richard Dawkins

Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 13:34:06 UTC