/ Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com> was heard to say: | That wasn't my point. I meant what about programs that don't accept XML | document as their input, but do accept input (i.e. accept plain text input | or just an input in another non XML format)? An empty binding would be like | providing no input, but that doesn't deal with programs accepting text input | (and especially doesn't deal with programs that would require input). The Right. If we don't have a stdin port, then you can't run programs that require input on their stdin. They just won't get any input. If we do have a stdin port, then we can easily send serialized XML. That makes programs that (a) manipulate XML and (b) accept XML on stdin accessible more-or-less directly from inside a pipeline. What you can't do is run programs that require stdin to be non-XML. But you couldn't run those if you didn't have a stdin port either. | If stdin was an option or if there was some way to get the whole text | contents of the XML document instead, this would sort of solve this. | | How about a similar XPointer (or maybe just plain XPath) syntax like the one | from this other comment of mine? | http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/200 | 7Sep/0053.html | | If THAT was to be accepted, this issue (and many others that could occur) | would be solved too. Too much for V1, IMHO. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Anything more than the truth would be http://nwalsh.com/ | too much.--Robert FrostReceived on Monday, 1 October 2007 17:36:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:42 GMT