<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"><title>norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2008/09/28/calabash</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://norman.walsh.name/2008/09/28/calabash"/><id>http://norman.walsh.name/2008/09/28/calabash/comments.atom</id><updated>2012-02-13T09:37:34.740699Z</updated><entry><title>Comment 1 on /2008/09/28/calabash</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://norman.walsh.name/2008/09/28/calabash#comment0001"/><id>http://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment0001</id><published>2008-10-01T14:03:30Z</published><updated>2008-10-01T14:03:30Z</updated><author><name>Florent Georges</name><foaf:mbox_sha1sum>da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709</foaf:mbox_sha1sum></author><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
    <p>Hi Norm,
</p>
    <p>
I really like the idea of a core XProc recommendation, supplemented with a few smaller recommendations, targeted at more dedicated scopes.  If those only define additional steps, that sounds like defining an extension or library, like any other (besides the fact that they would be designed by an authoritative organization, and that's a lot!)
</p>
    <p>
Even if they are just published as notes, that would be a good place to centralize commonly used steps behind the scope of XProc core, and to provide info on how common extensions are designed, for further work on XProc itself...
</p>
    <p>
Hope you'll be able to convince RDF and Security WGs!
</p>
    <p>
-- 
Florent Georges</p>
  </div></content></entry></feed>

