You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cocoon.apache.org by Jeroen Reijn <j....@hippo.nl> on 2006/10/02 10:53:43 UTC
RE: XProc?
Hi Lars,
this seems very interesting! I guess this does have to go to the developers list though.
I did not find any reference or participation on the Developers list yet, so I don't think the Cocoon community is participating yet.
I personally think that the cocoon community should participate in the XML Processing Model Working Group, since they have a LOT of experience with XML processing and pipeline orders.
Regards,
Reijn
-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Huttar [mailto:lars_huttar@sil.org]
Posted At: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:33 PM
Posted To: Cocoon User List
Conversation: XProc?
Subject: XProc?
Hello Cocooners,
Maybe this is a question for the dev list but...
given the announcement below, that W3C is working on a standard for an XML pipeline language "to specify the order, parameters, and expected results of transformations in a standard way", is this something that is likely to make its way into Cocoon?
Should Cocoon support XProc?
Is the Cocoon community contributing to this standardization effort based on our experience with XML pipelining?
Lars
(From: XML Daily Newslink. Friday, 29 September 2006
A Cover Pages Publication http://xml.coverpages.org/
Provided by OASIS http://www.oasis-open.org
Edited by Robin Cover)
W3C Introduces XProc: An XML Pipeline Language
Norman Walsh (ed), W3C Working Draft
W3C has announced the publication of a First Public Working Draft for
"XProc: An XML Pipeline Language." The draft was produced my members of
the XML Processing Model Working Group as part of the W3C XML Activity.
That working group was chartered to address a range concerns that are
not formally defined in the XML Recommendation itself, for example,
ability to specify the order, parameters, and expected results of
transformations in a standard way. XSLT, XML Schema, XInclude, XML
Canonicalization, and other specifications do define transformations
that operate on and produce XML documents. However, the order in which
these transformations are to be applied is not specified anywhere,
even though applying them in different orders will in general yield
different results. The draft "XProc: An XML Pipeline Language" document
begins to address concerns presented in the W3C "XML Processing Model
Requirements and Use Cases" specification, released in April 2006. From
the XProc Introduction: "An XML Pipeline specifies a sequence of
operations to be performed on a collection of input documents. Pipelines
take zero or more XML documents as their input and produce zero or more
XML documents as their output. Steps in the pipeline may read or write
non-XML resources as well. A pipeline consists of components. Like
pipelines, components take zero or more XML documents as their input
and produce zero or more XML documents as their output. The inputs to a
component come from the web, from the pipeline document, from the inputs
to the pipeline itself, or from the outputs of other components in the
pipeline. The outputs from a component are consumed by other components,
are outputs of the pipeline as a whole, or are discarded. There are two
kinds of components: steps and (language) constructs. Steps carry out
single operations and have no substructure as far as the pipeline is
concerned, whereas constructs can include components within themselves.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/
See also Norm Walsh's blog: http://norman.walsh.name/2006/09/28/xprocfpwd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@cocoon.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: XProc?
Posted by Erik Bruchez <er...@bruchez.org>.
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Erik Bruchez <er...@bruchez.org> wrote:
>> The question was asked by Sylvain in the dev list back in December 2005,
>> when the working group was being formed, and the unanimous response from
>> Cocoon developers was quite dismissive:
>>
>> http://marc2.theaimsgroup.com/?t=113596529900005&r=1&w=3...
>
> Rereading the thread, I find one person against joining, others saying
> that it might be a good thing to join, and most of us ignoring the
> discussion, for whatever reason.
I was maybe a bit tough, but that's in fact two people against the very
idea of XProc in the first place if you count the person replying "Hear
hear" ;-) Still, my point was that XProc should have generated interest
and enthusiasm from the Cocoon developers, and at the very least the
desire to influence the standardization process.
-Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: XProc?
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On 10/17/06, Erik Bruchez <er...@bruchez.org> wrote:
> The question was asked by Sylvain in the dev list back in December 2005,
> when the working group was being formed, and the unanimous response from
> Cocoon developers was quite dismissive:
>
> http://marc2.theaimsgroup.com/?t=113596529900005&r=1&w=3...
Rereading the thread, I find one person against joining, others saying
that it might be a good thing to join, and most of us ignoring the
discussion, for whatever reason.
There was no official decision about joining or not. If some of us
want to keep in touch with what's happening there, keep us informed
and maybe bring some of our experience to the XPL group, why not?
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@cocoon.apache.org
Re: XProc?
Posted by Erik Bruchez <er...@bruchez.org>.
The question was asked by Sylvain in the dev list back in December 2005,
when the working group was being formed, and the unanimous response from
Cocoon developers was quite dismissive:
http://marc2.theaimsgroup.com/?t=113596529900005&r=1&w=3
As a participating member of the XML Processing Model Working Group (I
wrote the W3C XPL Submission for Orbeon [1][2]) at W3C, I can't imagine
something more puzzling. On the other hand, this sounds like a typical
instance of the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome.
-Erik
[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/xpl/
[2] http://www.orbeon.com/
Jeroen Reijn wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> this seems very interesting! I guess this does have to go to the developers list though.
> I did not find any reference or participation on the Developers list yet, so I don't think the Cocoon community is participating yet.
> I personally think that the cocoon community should participate in the XML Processing Model Working Group, since they have a LOT of experience with XML processing and pipeline orders.
>
> Regards,
>
> Reijn
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars Huttar [mailto:lars_huttar@sil.org]
> Posted At: Friday, September 29, 2006 8:33 PM
> Posted To: Cocoon User List
> Conversation: XProc?
> Subject: XProc?
>
>
> Hello Cocooners,
>
> Maybe this is a question for the dev list but...
> given the announcement below, that W3C is working on a standard for an XML pipeline language "to specify the order, parameters, and expected results of transformations in a standard way", is this something that is likely to make its way into Cocoon?
> Should Cocoon support XProc?
>
> Is the Cocoon community contributing to this standardization effort based on our experience with XML pipelining?
>
> Lars
>
>
> (From: XML Daily Newslink. Friday, 29 September 2006
> A Cover Pages Publication http://xml.coverpages.org/
> Provided by OASIS http://www.oasis-open.org
> Edited by Robin Cover)
>
> W3C Introduces XProc: An XML Pipeline Language
> Norman Walsh (ed), W3C Working Draft
>
> W3C has announced the publication of a First Public Working Draft for
> "XProc: An XML Pipeline Language." The draft was produced my members of
> the XML Processing Model Working Group as part of the W3C XML Activity.
> That working group was chartered to address a range concerns that are
> not formally defined in the XML Recommendation itself, for example,
> ability to specify the order, parameters, and expected results of
> transformations in a standard way. XSLT, XML Schema, XInclude, XML
> Canonicalization, and other specifications do define transformations
> that operate on and produce XML documents. However, the order in which
> these transformations are to be applied is not specified anywhere,
> even though applying them in different orders will in general yield
> different results. The draft "XProc: An XML Pipeline Language" document
> begins to address concerns presented in the W3C "XML Processing Model
> Requirements and Use Cases" specification, released in April 2006. From
> the XProc Introduction: "An XML Pipeline specifies a sequence of
> operations to be performed on a collection of input documents. Pipelines
> take zero or more XML documents as their input and produce zero or more
> XML documents as their output. Steps in the pipeline may read or write
> non-XML resources as well. A pipeline consists of components. Like
> pipelines, components take zero or more XML documents as their input
> and produce zero or more XML documents as their output. The inputs to a
> component come from the web, from the pipeline document, from the inputs
> to the pipeline itself, or from the outputs of other components in the
> pipeline. The outputs from a component are consumed by other components,
> are outputs of the pipeline as a whole, or are discarded. There are two
> kinds of components: steps and (language) constructs. Steps carry out
> single operations and have no substructure as far as the pipeline is
> concerned, whereas constructs can include components within themselves.
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/
> See also Norm Walsh's blog: http://norman.walsh.name/2006/09/28/xprocfpwd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@cocoon.apache.org