- 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, norm -- Norman Walsh Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation Phone: +1 512 761 6676 www.marklogic.com
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 16:53:52 UTC