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

Re: XQuery WG comments on XProc specification

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:46:51 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2d4lcsh44.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ "Alex Milowski" <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
| We had this discussion on one of our telcons quite awhile ago and
| the WG was notably against allowing this. In fact, I originally
| wrote the step to allow this and the consensus was it was a bad
| idea.

I think we're going to have to do something about the p:xquery step.

The observation that XQuery documents don't have to be namespace well-formed
is a show-stopper for our current solution, I think.

I can think of three workarounds that *I think* would work:

Option 1: Use XInclude, we do nothing:

  <p:input port="source">
        <xi:include href="document.xqy" parse="text"/>

Option 2: Add a step that does this:

<p:wrap-text wrapper="c:query" href="document.xqy">

Or, I suppose, we could modify p:document so that it had this behavior
with some optional attribute:

  <p:document href="document.xqy" parse="text" wrapper="c:query"/>

That might be the easiest thing to do.

Option 3: Allow the query document on p:xquery to come *either* from
the source port or from an href option:

<p:xquery href="document.xqy">
  <p:input port="query">

None of these strikes me as ideal...

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Not everyone can live upstream.
http://nwalsh.com/            | 

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 14:47:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:25 UTC