- From: Geert J. <geert.josten@dayon.nl>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:09:50 +0100
- To: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>, Jostein Austvik Jacobsen <josteinaj@gmail.com>
- Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
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? Cheers > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: fgeorges@gmail.com [mailto:fgeorges@gmail.com] 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 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 15:10:21 UTC