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

Re: more p:output thoughts

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:30:17 -0400
To: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <87645ympkm.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| On 6/8/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
|> / James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say:
|> | 5.5 p:output Element
|> |
|> | p:output can contain a p:document which in turn is defined as 'A
|> | p:document reads an XML document from a URI.'....is this an oversight
|> | of some sort? Is there any related error condition for this type of
|> | scenario?
|> The construction
|>   <p:output port="foo">
|>     <p:document href="someURI"/>
|>   </p:output>
|> causes the content of someURI to appear on the output port "foo". I
|> expect it to be very, very uncommon. Used mostly, if ever, in p:catch
|> steps to produce constant error output.
| yes, but from a users point I would argue that expected behavior from
| such a construction would be 'save the output to anyURI'....willing to
| bet a pint that this will become a very common FAQ indeed.

Indeed. Actually, I think that our very recent decision to forbid
completely empty compound steps removes all the practical value in
allowing p:document inside p:output so I think I'm going to argue that
we remove it.

It used to be the case that you could imagine saying:

    <p:output port="result">
      <p:document href="someURI"/>

But that's not legal anymore so I don't think there's any value in
having p:document or p:inline in p:output.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Old and young, we are all on our last
http://nwalsh.com/            | cruise.--Robert Louis Stevenson

Received on Friday, 8 June 2007 15:30:31 UTC

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