cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Wechner <>
Subject Re: [RT] reconsidering pipeline semantics
Date Sat, 06 Jul 2002 20:10:37 GMT

J.Pietschmann wrote:

> 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 

Well, there is

I have programmed it about two years ago and integrated it into
Wyona/Cocoon two months ago. But it still needs some refactoring such
that I will be able to submit it as a patch to Cocoon.


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:
> For additional commands, email:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, email:

View raw message