- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:12:19 -0600
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 14:12:48 UTC
Alex MiĆowski <alex@milowski.com> writes: > Looking at the standard step library, it occurs to me that the > language "required" and "optional" feels a bit too constraining. We > might consider defining steps as a module: > > * each set of steps would belong to a named module > * each module would have a URI > * there would be a required module (or set of modules) that a > pipeline implementor must support to be considered conform ant. > > This would also give us the option of compartmentalizing certain XML > micro operations vs larger operations (e.g. XSLT/XQuery) that wouldn't > be relevant for a processor that did other content types. I think that's an intresting idea. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation Phone: +1 512 761 6676 www.marklogic.com
Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 14:12:48 UTC