- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:59:28 +0100
- To: Jim Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>
- Cc: XProc Comments <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>, XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On 26 November 2014 at 18:01, Jim Fuller wrote:
Hi,
> <p:identity name="mystep"/>
> <p:wrap-sequence .../>
> <p:count from="mystep"/>
> [...]
> Which is semantically equivalent to the following pipeline.
> <p:identity name="mystep"/>
> <p:wrap-sequence .../>
> <p:count>
> <p:input port="source">
> <p:pipe step="mystep" port="result"/>
> </p:input>
I like the idea. But it is limited to primary ports. What about
something like the following, allowing to give the port as well
(indeed still using the primary port if not explicit):
<p:count from="result@mystep"/>
Because both names are NCNames, we could use "mystep:result" as
well, but it would then look too much like a QName, and people would
wonder why "mystep" prefix is not declared. I liked "mystep.result"
but "." is a legitimate character in an NCName. I like "mystep→result"
as well, but I do not think the IT world is ready yet for that in
2015.
I think that from="result@mystep" reads quite easy in plain English.
Regards,
--
Florent Georges
http://fgeorges.org/
http://h2oconsulting.be/
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 19:00:15 UTC