W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > November 2008

Re: Configuration options

From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:25:08 +0100
Message-ID: <ebaca5bf0811110725s238b890cj69d28ba78478e583@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: "XProc Dev" <xproc-dev@w3.org>

2008/11/11 Norman Walsh wrote:

> 1. It's a configuration file if the local-name of the root element is
> "xproc-config". This way, users can choose an
> implementation-appropriate default namespace if they want, but my
> implementation will still look inside it.

> 2. My implementation will attempt to process any element in either
> no-namespace or my namespace. If several implementations agree on the
> name of a particular configuration property, then we can share the
> same definition if it's in no-namespace. If it's in a namespace, but
> not in my namespace, I just ignore it.

  I must admit I don't understand this use of non-namespaced elements.
 They can sound appealing at first to solve integration issues, but
from experience, I think they are rarely the best choice.  But maybe I
missed something?  Why don't just use a namespace for Calabash config
files?  Anyway, the options will be for their most pasrt
implementation dedicated, won't they?


Florent Georges
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 15:25:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:16:44 UTC