- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:29:48 +0100
- To: Jostein Austvik Jacobsen <josteinaj@gmail.com>
- Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
On 18 February 2014 10:00, Jostein Austvik Jacobsen wrote: Hi Jostein, > Would you prefer if the steps are moved to some PipX namespacing > regime or are any namespace fine? Unless there was a specific technical reason, I'd rather keep all in the PipX namespace (maybe split at some point among several namespace). I think it makes things more clear. > I think the main obstacle to using PipX in other projects are how > easily it can be integrated into other build processes. Among other important points, yes. Using the EXPath packaging might help here. If you have any specific ideas or problems with you own build system, I'd be interested to hear them. In the meantime I have added a few open questions at http://pipx.org/progress.html, and would be happy to expand it based on comments (or even resolve them :-p). Regards, -- Florent Georges http://fgeorges.org/ http://h2oconsulting.be/
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 10:30:37 UTC