- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:38:56 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87y4tzthe7.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> writes: > 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? Mostly interoperability. If you implement the p:xquery step, you are expected to do it as we described. We could have two documents: XProc 2.0: An XML Pipeline Language XProc 2.0: Step Vocabulary And put them all in one spec. > And, what's being achieved by having separate documents? Two separate editors? Some sense of editorial correctness, I think, and the option of revising them on different timelines. > 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 :-) ) Wiki. Blech. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation Phone: +1 512 761 6676 www.marklogic.com
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 17:39:26 UTC