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

Re: Saxonica Comments on XProc last-call draft, sections 1 and 2

From: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:23:01 +0200
Message-ID: <21d9ade60709261323g241f6c1n36758f8327262da2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
Cc: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

On 9/26/07, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:
> > | 7. Technical. In 2.5, Parameters, it seems unnecessarily
> > constraining
> > | to require that the value of a parameter be a string. In XSLT, for
> > | example, it is common for a parameter to have a document as
> > its value.
> >
> > For V1, the WG has decided that all parameters will be
> > exclusively strings.
>
> Sounds to me like a simplification too far. Makes it quite hard to write a
> pipeline in which a transform step merges two input documents that are
> constructed by earlier stages.


That's true !
And to be fair, we also has this problem for XInclude for example,
where we decided that what happen behing the scene (say with the
filesystem) was out of scope for V1 (several proposed a p:map or
something like to map an infoset to a URI for the step, but it seemed
too comlex)

So one option would be to use the optional XSLT 2.0 step to transform
the sequence of your two infosets
Or if you want to use XSLT 1.0, you have to serialize one file first
and read it through the filesystem from inside the stylesheet

Xmlizer
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 20:23:11 UTC

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