RE: question for Kirill

At 04:19 PM 4/18/03 -0400, you wrote:

>Kirill wrote:
> >Our current definition may leave impression that a technology always
> >has a closed set of modules.
>It sure does. I think that was the intent. We were thinking of modules
>in the sense proposed for XSLT 2.0 (core, serialization, schema
>awareness, backward compatibility, etc.).

I was thinking of it in the XHTML Modularization sense.  It took a 
monolithic collection of functions from XHTML 1.0, and divided it into a 
bunch of subsets -- the modules -- that are building blocks for writing 
profiles.  Here (as I recall) there is no single Core module.  However 
there is a collection of modules that comprise a minimum for any profile 
that gets a certain defined goodness rating from XHTML (that is a rule for 
profiles in XHTML -- "any good profile contains at least these modules...")

(Haven't studied XLST 2.0 closely, so tell me if I'm violently agreeing 
with you.)

> >I think we could add to the note for G5 that spec may allow for
> >additional modules, should define extensibility framework and
> >conformance requirements for modules to be added.
> >An example could be SOAP Messaging Framework (SOAP Part 1) and SOAP
> >Encodings. SOAP Part 2 defines one SOAP Encoding (also called
> >"Section 5"), a module according to our definition.
>Isn't this more like an extension? XPath comes with a set of functions,
>and you can add in more functions, but the rules constraining the
>added functions are extension-type (GL 9) rules.

I'd like to clarify Kirill's original statement, "also allow for adding 
more modules following certain extensibility framework. Our current 
definition may leave impression that a technology always has a closed set 
of modules."


1.) does this mean adding new functions via extensibility, and collecting 
those into new modules?

2.) or, does it mean imposing a new modularization on the set of functions 
that are standardized in WS?

(Okay, or "3.) both"  -- i.e., there could be hybrids, but let's ignore 
them for a minute.  I think you see what I'm trying to sort out.)


Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 17:11:31 UTC