RE: PipX, a portable library of XProc pipelines and steps

How to reach consensus on contributions? Or are we taking the xproc
extensions approach, open a new ticket for each contribution, discuss it
first, then consider putting code in?


> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [] Namens Florent
> Georges
> Verzonden: dinsdag 18 februari 2014 11:30
> Aan: Jostein Austvik Jacobsen
> CC: XProc Dev
> Onderwerp: Re: PipX, a portable library of XProc pipelines and steps
> 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, and would
> be happy to expand it based on comments (or even resolve them :-p).
>   Regards,
> --
> Florent Georges

Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 15:10:21 UTC