- 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 UTC