cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "J.Pietschmann" <j3322...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: [RT] reconsidering pipeline semantics
Date Sat, 06 Jul 2002 13:40:40 GMT
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> In that case I agree: like I said, if you need to do your stuff without
> Cocoon around, or without a precise way (xpipe?) to define how a
> document is processed, document() is the way to go. That's the only
> argument I acknowledge.

The problem appears to be that there aren't many
(any?) stand-alone xinclude processors and XML
pipeline processors out there, not the mention
the lack of standardized interfaces, descriptions
(for pipelines) and behaviour. Cocoon is breaking
ground here, but for many purposes having to use
full Cocoon is just too heavyweight (and too
monolithic).

What about applying to standards organisations
for pipeline descriptions and Java interfaces
to xinclude, pipeline, FO and SVG processors?
Cocoon could provide a host experience and would
make a great testbed.

J.Pietschmann


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message