- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:58:41 -0500
- To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <m2wsdr7g2m.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"David A. Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> writes: > --- Asketh Norman > This is either an opportunity for someone to point out why it would be > a really bad idea to add those dependencies or fair warning that the > next release will have them ... or both. > --- > > My oppinion is that adding these depancies and advanced features is an > slippery slope. > If you need advanced features like cookie processing etc then you > should be running a specialized > tool like "wget", which can be run from xproc as an external process step. > Its a slippery slope because "whats next" ? caching ? JavaScript ? > ActiveX controls ? > AJAX ? Java applets ? Silverlight ? on and on ... > My oppinion is to keep the core functionality simple and clean and let > people use custom external tools > for the fancy stuff. I see where you're going, but I think the WG has consensus that the p:http-request step should be a fairly rich step. I also think there's a natural answer to the questions you pose: the step should be media type agnostic. So cookies are in, Java, ActiveX Controls, etc. are out. HTTP caching proxies are mostly transparent, and we're writing an http-request step, not a http-server step, so I don't think that'll be a problem. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | It is not failure of others to http://nwalsh.com/ | appreciate your abilities that should | trouble you, but rather your failure to | appreciate theirs.-- Confucius
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 02:59:26 UTC