Re: Split spec into two or more parts

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