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

RE: An unfulfilled requirement maybe?

From: Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:40:22 +0300
Message-ID: <5f7c87a30709300940s1e374b74w1cd6c716883525b2@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

>An XML document goes in the input port and it's connected to stdin on the
program that runs.
>
>I'm tempted to special case an empty binding to stdin.

I'm confused. Don't you need the program to be already started in order to
use the input stream? That's how most shells (actually... all that I've
used) usually do it at least. And if that's the case here too, what will the
output and error streams look like when the input steam is used in the
middle of the program?

How exactly is the input document used? Passed at once as a serialized
document with the default serialization options? If so, what about programs
that don't accept XML document as their input? Is the input's text contents
supplied at once? Or is it each line of the text contents supplied for each
time the application accepts input on the stdin stream? Possibly this could
be adjustable with another option if so?

This whole input thing starts to overcomplicate this step if you ask me, but
if you and the WG can figure it out, what the heck... it would be a nice
feature.

>Yeah, maybe it'd be better to just make command the whole command line, in
which case...maybe it should be called command-line :-)

The option or the step? Or both ;-)

>The way I coded it up, you get an empty c:result on the output port if that
output produced ... no output. I suppose it might be possible to make it
>return an empty sequence instead, but I'd rather not.

Fair enough.

Regards,
Vasil Rangelov
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2007 16:40:31 UTC

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