Re: Split spec into two or more parts

Two specs seems ok to me (as "XPath" and "Function and Operator")

Mohamed

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €