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

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">
    <p:empty/>
  </p:input>
  ...
</p:xquery>

None of these strikes me as ideal...

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 July 2008 14:47:36 GMT