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

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

From: Zearin <zearin@gonk.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:48:16 -0500
Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2D70968E-9CBD-4831-9C34-4CD7315949E1@gonk.net>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
On Jan 29, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Zearin <zearin@gonk.net> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Yep.  Makes sense.  
> pxp:compress / pxp:uncompress
> pxp:archive / pxp:unarchive

Argh!  I just realized this response isn’t actually responding to what I quoted.  Sorry!

That’s what I get for trying to write e-mails before I’m completely awake. :P

But, anyway—I agree: pxp:{compress,uncompress} would be a more accurate name than pxp:{archive, unarchive}.  

There’s always going to be some overlap between various types of compression/archival formats. But when was the last time you saw a file that was archived, but NOT compressed?  Compression is definitely the human end-goal.  So, the step’s name should probably reflect that.  

—Zearin (Tony)

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 12:48:44 UTC

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