Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Skeleton archive unarchive steps #55

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 24, 2019

Conversation

xatapult
Copy link
Contributor

I created skeleton entries for the p:archive and the p:unarchive steps. I suggest we use these as a starting point for further refinements (even if they're not complete yet), unless I of course totally interpreted things wrong. And even then, something to start with and bicker about is better than nothing.

This is for #3 en #4, based on my interpretation of the minutes of Prague, https://github.com/xproc/Workshop-2019-02/wiki/Meeting-minutes-Wednesday

The specifications need a schema extension for their manifest file(s) but that is currently beyond my abilities.

@xatapult xatapult requested a review from a team March 21, 2019 14:20
@xml-project
Copy link
Member

Thanks Erik. I haven't had the time to read it all, but I will do tomorrow morning. On the first reading of p:unarchive two question came up:

  1. Do we really need option format? Wouldn't it be enough to say, the implementation has to choose the method based on the source document's content type? May be I overlooked something obvious.

  2. I would like to have the manifest either as XML or as JSON. If I remember right, we talked about this in Prague, so the mechanism to select this would, given the current signature, one special key in parameters? Right?

@xml-project xml-project requested review from xml-project and removed request for xml-project March 22, 2019 17:58
@xatapult xatapult merged commit 92939c7 into xproc:master Mar 24, 2019
@xatapult xatapult deleted the skeleton-archive-unarchive-step branch March 24, 2019 10:39
This was referenced Mar 27, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants