- From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@wendellpiez.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2025 08:28:54 -0500
- To: Norm Tovey-Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: Dev XProc <xproc-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAO_-xzhbsi+JXxkFJcAgvoF4vQ5r-sw9i_2TgedXkDUoJcKBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Norm,
"Deprecated and discouraged" only in the sense that passing a relative URI
and expecting 'relativity' is an anti-pattern.
Also I agree that there should be no distinction (of this kind) made
between steps based on who defines them.
Indeed, to a better 2026!
Regards, Wendell
On Wed, Dec 24, 2025 at 7:44 AM Norm Tovey-Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> Wendell Piez <wapiez@wendellpiez.com> writes:
> > I wonder how many users actually need or want the old ('wrong') behavior.
>
> I wonder how many users are unaware that they’re relying on it!
>
> > Whatever we do about namespace-rename, this makes me lean towards a
> strict approach of effectively deprecating and discouraging this.
>
> I’m not sure what you want to deprecate or discourage. The
> namespace-rename step just needs to be changed so that the $from and $to
> options are xs:string instead of xs:anyURI, I think.
>
> > Error handling when URIs fail might also be enhanced/enhanceable with
> diagnostic info such as relative-part and base URI.
>
> Do you have an example where you think it’s currently insufficient?
> The message today is along the lines of “Invalid URI: %gg” which is about
> as clear as I can imagine making it.
>
> > I'd also like to know if you, Achim, George and others feel (as I do)
> that the stricter model is more robust and secure. (And as you say, one can
> always pass a string or heck, even a function?)
>
> I’m not sure about robust and secure, what I see is that it’s more
> consistent. I think a user calling
>
> x:myStep
>
> should not have to know or care if x:myStep is a user defined step or a
> built in atomic step. They shouldn’t be able to tell.
>
> > Thanks and happy solstice, today is actually longer, in the 'more
> daylight' sense --
>
> All the days in 2025 have been long, my friend. Here’s to 2026 being
> bettter!
>
> Be seeing you,
> norm
>
> --
> Norm Tovey-Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
> https://norm.tovey-walsh.com/
>
> > What if this weren't a hypothetical question?
>
--
...Wendell Piez... ...wendellpiez.com...
...pellucidliterature.org... ...pausepress.org... ...github.com/wendellpiez.
..
Received on Wednesday, 24 December 2025 13:29:11 UTC