Re: Proposed extension libraries

"Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes:

>> Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com> writes:
>> > Could they be integrated in the code repository ? Or are they be
>> > available somewhere in EXproc ?
>> 
>> I just updated exproc.org to include the proposed os and file
>> utilities. Comments most welcome. As soon as we get consensus, I'll
>> promote them to "accepted" and publish .xpl libraries for them.
>
> Do you expect that the namespace URI for the proposed EXpath extension
> XPath functions will remain "http://exproc.org/proposed/functions"? Or
> do you plan to categorize the functions in a similar fashion as the
> steps, that is having separate namespaces for OS-related functions,

I dunno. I'm open to suggestions. I suppose there's actually no reason
to have different namespaces except to avoid name collisions (pxf:info
vs. pos:info, but we could fix that by changing the local names).

Would it be better to put *all* exproc.org steps in a single namespace?

> file-related functions, etc? Right now, there is only the pxf:cwd()
> function which corresponds to the OS-related step pos:cwd().

Yeah, given pxf:cwd() you don't really need pos:cwd. But I didn't see
that it caused any harm to have the duplication.

If someone proposed a whole raft of related functions, I might be
inclined to put them in their own namespace.

I do plan to remove /proposed/ from the namespace URIs when we have
consensus to adopt them. Not that there's a whole lot of process here,
exactly.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The fundamental delusion of humanity is
http://nwalsh.com/            | to suppose that I am here and you are
                              | out there.--Yasutani Roshi