- From: Toman, Vojtech <Vojtech.Toman@dell.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:09:19 +0000
- To: Geert Bormans <geert@gbormans.telenet.be>, XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
- CC: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
+1 to the idea of an 'injection framework/spec'. Regards, Vojtech -----Original Message----- From: Geert Bormans [mailto:geert@gbormans.telenet.be] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:00 PM To: XProc Dev Cc: Norman Walsh Subject: Re: Remove p:log? Hi Norm, If I remember well it is not just a matter of dropping p:log We sort of agreed that it should be removed from the core spec and moved to a yet to be discussed injection framework together with eg. validation of the result on a port, storage of intermediate results,... all driven by debug levels and user defined storage uri's... It would lead to cleaner pipelines with a more extensive power to do diagnostics without changing the actual pipeline, through using injection I believe that was discussed right before you arrived, so we might have been lacking proper reporting to you about it during the meeting. Not sure this bridges the gap correctly, I invite others to correct me if I am mistaken Cheers Geert ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- Van: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com> Aan: "XProc Dev" <xproc-dev@w3.org> Verzonden: Maandag 18 september 2017 13:50:52 Onderwerp: Remove p:log? At the workshop, there seemed to be a consensus that p:log was something that no one used or, if they used it, it wasn’t very helpful. It’s kind of a wart on the language. I wonder if we should remove it. (As an implementor, I’m inclined to make it possible to dynamically select which ports to log without having to edit the pipeline and insert p:log statements.) Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation Phone: +1 512 761 6676 www.marklogic.com
Received on Monday, 18 September 2017 13:10:02 UTC