search

xproc / 3.0-steps

Repository for change requests to the standard step library and for official extension steps
10 stars 7 forks source link

p:ixml or p:invisible-xml? #625

Closed ndw closed 1 month ago

ndw commented 1 month ago

The specification for "Invisible XML" defines a step called "p:ixml". I wonder if that was intentional?

Most of our steps have longer, more descriptive names. I propose that we should call that step p:invisible-xml instead.

Thoughts?

xml-project commented 1 month ago

Pro: In XPath the function is called "fn:invisible-xml", so easier to memorize. Contra: Renaming the step breaks existing pipelines or breaks interoperability if a processor supports the new name exclusively.

ndw commented 1 month ago

The existence of the fn:invisible-xml function in XPath 4.0 makes me feel very strongly that we should rename the step.

I suggest that we rename it, but note that implementors may wish to recognize p:ixml as an alternative for some period of time as it was originally published with that name.

gimsieke commented 1 month ago

p:xslt (rather than p:extensible-stylesheet-language-transformation or the like) is purely acronymic, so there’s precedent. But yes, synchronizing with fn:invisible-xml might also be a good idea. I don’t have a strong opinion about it.