W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Proposed steps: pxp:gunzip and pxp:gzip

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:53:19 -0600
To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m2ip6hz1ts.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Zearin <zearin@gonk.net> writes:
> I dislike separate steps for the different archive formats.  
> I should be able to specify that I want to ARCHIVE or UNARCHIVE a
> file, and let the processor handle the details. Both archival and
> unarchival can be determined from the file extension.
> What say you?

So your preference would be a pxp:archive step that could perform gzip,
compress, bzip2, etc. and a pxp:unarchive step that did the reverse?

I suppose that's plausible. I'm not sure I like extension peeking though.
For the archive step at least, I think I'd want an attribute to control
the archive format.

Does this beg the question of whether the pxp:zip and pxp:unzip steps
should also be combined? I think that's probably not a good idea, as
multi-file archives are quite different from compression.

Maybe the steps should be pxp:compress and pxp:uncompress as archive
does sort of suggest zip/tar/rar etc.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 512 761 6676

Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 16:53:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:17:07 UTC