W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > August 2008

Re: XQuery WG comments on XProc specification

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:19:09 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
CC: Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <m2ej528bvm.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com> was heard to say:
| Reference has been made to a message that I sent to a member-only list:
|
|> First, Andrew's email, which the WG largely endorsed:
|> 
|> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-query/2008Jun/0000.html

Hi Andrew,

I hope that the most recent editor's draft of XProc satisfies all
of your concerns, http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html

| This message said:
|
| I reviewed the latest XProc draft [1], specifically section 7.2.9, 
| p:xquery,  and I have the following concerns:
|
| - no way to pass a single document as the context item

For consistency with the description of p:xslt, we've made the first
document that arrives on the source port the context item. All of the
documents remain the default collectin.

| - no mapping to our static and dynamic context

I've tried to clarify how I think 2.6.2.2 (with some modifications)
does this, but if you think I'm still wrong, please let me know.

| - no way to make reference to an xquery file

Fixed. We added p:data which can read a non-XML document.

| - no way to use XQueryX

Fixed.

| - I don't understand "The result of the XQuery is a sequence of documents
|   constructed from an [XPath 2.0] sequence of elements. Each element in 
| the
|   sequence is assumed to be the document element of a separate document."

I think we've already talked that one through.

If you think there are still problems with the XQuery step, please let
me know.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Why shouldn't things be largely absurd,
http://nwalsh.com/            | futile, and transitory? They are so,
                              | and we are so, and they and we go very
                              | well together.-- Santayana

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 14:19:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 August 2008 14:19:59 GMT