Re: Renaming p:xslt ?

/ "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| I'm thinking that Alex is asking good question :

I'd like to avoid a proliferation of versioned steps, if possible. The
only alternative that I can think of is to allow a certain amount of
"chameleon" behavior on steps.

| xmlschema : 1.0 ? 1.1 ? both ?

I'd be happy saying the p:validate-xml-schema step accepts XSD 1.* and
fails if it sees a version it doesn't recognize.

| xslfo : 1.0 ? 1.1 ? both ?

Ditto.

| xslt : 1.0 ? 1.1 ? 2.0 ? exslt ? all ?

The difference between XSLT 1.0 and XSLT 2.0 seems large enough to
warrant two steps (especially since one's required and one's optional).

I suppose p:xslt1 and p:xslt2 are the way to go. Though I have a
marginal preference for spelling the XSLT 1.0 step "p:xslt", I won't
make a fuss about it.

| p:store : xml 1.0 ? xml 1.1 ? both ?

I'm happy saying that p:store can write XML 1.0 or XML 1.1 with the
option of failing if XML 1.1 isn't supported.

| p:http-request : http 1.0 ? http 1.1 ? both ?

Ditto.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | It is good to have an end to journey
http://nwalsh.com/            | toward; but it is the journey that
                              | matters, in the end.--Ursula K. LeGuin