- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:24:40 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:25:45 -0500 Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > Straw proposal, three REC track documents: > > XProc 2.0: An XML Pipeline Language > XProc 2.0: Required Step Vocabulary > XProc 2.0: Optional Step Vocabulary > What's the benefit of having optional steps on the rec track? And, what's being achieved by having separate documents? Two separate editors? A down side for me is that it's already difficuly to learn XProc, and having to know whether a step is optional or required makes life harder. Maybe the answer is that we should make a wiki at w3.org with a page for each step, where there could be examples too? In that case I don't see it making much difference, although we might need to issue a patent exclusion (and if a charter change is needed I'm vehemently opposed :-) ) -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 17:24:43 UTC