Re: subpipelines, Vnext and extension elements redux

/ (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh writes:
|> I think that's where we wound up back when we decided to take
|> pfx:other-compound-step out of 4.7,
| A primary motivation for my lengthy re-analysis was because it
| re-surfaced in the alternate draft, and is still there today [1]:
|  "The presence of other compound steps is implementation-defined;
|   XProc provides no standard mechanism for defining them or describing
|   what they can contain."

Right. If I want to implement ex:map-reduce, I'm free to do so. I
don't think we want to forbid implementation-defined compound steps.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <> | Greatness of soul is never apparent,            | for it conceals itself; a little
                              | originality is usually all that shows.
                              | Greatness of soul is more frequent than
                              | one would suppose.-- Stendhal

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 19:01:56 UTC