W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > April 2007

initial comments

From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:28:34 +0200
Message-ID: <a0ad8ffe0704101228w21017269j9d876f746dd3d9cf@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org


I had a chance to go through the latest XProc draft and wanted to
scratch out some thoughts here.

* should be consistent when indicating when a step takes multiple
inputs an/or multiple sequences...e.g. p:join-sequences  uses
<p:input port="*" sequence="yes"/> and p:subsequence does something
else...multiple input elements should be represented as well.

* might be worth outlineing how p:join-sequences will aggregate (e.g.
are documents serially aggregated or actually merged together)

* p:subsequence should be clarified: e.g. does an entire document get
aggregated to output when test is true.

* maybe useful to have http separated out e.g. http-get as required

* any thoughts on relation of xpointer with Xproc (e.g. wherever there
is a select attribute)?

* circular references with p:pipe needs clarification

* need to clarify sequences of documents usage for p:inline

* verbatim copy for p:identity needs to be a bit clarified.

* should there be default input and output names for default input and
output ports?

* p:xslt: should there be some namespace binding to define which XSLT
processor to use....also if so should  there should be a p:option to
determine any processor specific switches. Can think of this type of
thing cropping up with xml parser and various other steps that do work
(and their exists multiple processors)

* thoughts on an optional p:tidy or p:tag-soup?

* xsl:for-each adds a bit of complexity, might be useful to place this
as an optional step?

* I am not sure about p:try p:catch, try/catch has never felt right
with these kind of approaches.....once again possible optional step

will have more thoughts later on in the week; with more pickier
(spelling, language, etc) items

cheers, James Fuller
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 00:56:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:24 UTC