Re: p:schema-import

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| On 19 May 2008, at 16:59, Norman Walsh wrote:
|> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
|> | Seriously, we could say that for XProc v1, even if you're using
|> XPath
|> | 2.0, the in-scope schema definitions are all empty.
|>
|> Or implementation-defined?
|
| I guess. Is it going to be possible implementations to do their own
| version of <p:import-schema> as an extension?

I don't think there's anything preventing it today. You'd have to put it
in an extension attribute on p:pipeline, I guess, or in a p:pipeinfo,
though.

| Actually, we can't go all the way and say there are no in-scope schema
| definitions, because of course we do want to support dates and things
| like that, so in fact I meant "no in-scope schema definitions aside
| from the predefined schema types".

Yes, that's what I thought you meant. :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Any sufficiently advanced technology is
http://nwalsh.com/            | indistinguishable from a rigged demo.