- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:04:11 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
On 29 March 2010 14:51, Norman Walsh wrote: > Well, I think a processor could choose to support the fileutils > library of extension steps without supporting any additional > packaging system or functions. Of course. But there are really two different aspects here: the specification of extensions (and really only the spec itself), and how to deliver components written in plain core XML technologies (e.g. if an EXProc step can be written as a standard XProc pipeline, or even if they are written e.g. in Java but not as built-in in the processor). A processor can of course implement the spec any way it wants. But because you were starting of speaking about packaging and delivering (creating an XProc pipeline, putting it at this place on a website, etc.), I think the EXPath Packaging System is a good tool for that aspect. And anyway that's just a ZIP file. It is structured in such a way a processor can automatically use some infos but a human can also open it and extract the files to install them manually as it would do with any ZIP file for a non-packaged delivery. Regards, -- Florent Georges http://www.fgeorges.org/
Received on Monday, 29 March 2010 17:05:04 UTC