W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Minutes for XProc WG telcon of 6 Apr 2006

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:41:29 +0000
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0604100341u304d67c5o3163cb9b12b97100@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Rui Lopes" <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
Cc: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
>
>
>Ok I understand now
>But I can't stand we can't use constants like the dummy true() or false()
>which are simple xpath without reference to a document
>
>I imagine we have to reformulate so to understand
><<
>Conditionals are based on XPath expressions. It is possible to refer to a
>main Document as context
>Nota : we can still use document() function available in XPath for reference
>to more than one document
>>>
>
>Mohamed
>
>On 4/10/06, Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt> wrote:
>>
>> I was talking about testing over pipeline parameters without having to
>> test xpaths against documents. Example:
>>
>> <p:pipeline>
>>    <p:param name="debug" value="false" />
>>
>>    <p:step name="xslt">
>>      ...
>>    </p:step>
>>    <p:if test="true($debug)">
>>      <!-- perform some debugging tasks -->
>>    </p:if>
>>    ...
>> </p:pipeline>
>>
>>
>> If this type of features isn't allowed in the pipeline language, we
>> would have to define the debug flag in a dummy document and afterwards
>> test that document with a xpath expression.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rui
>>
>>
>> Innovimax SARL wrote:
>> > Hello
>> >
>> > I'm not sure to understand all your resquest but imagine it is a
>> > XSLT-like parameter style
>> > Then a parameter is just a xsl:variable-like so can be accessed via
>> XPath
>> > That's another point for XPath to be intimately related to XProc
>> >
>> > Mohamed
>> >
>> >
>> > On 4/10/06, *Rui Lopes* <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt <mailto:rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >      >
>> >      >   Conditionals and sub-pipelines
>> >      >
>> >      >    Norm: Richard proposed a single standard conditional that
>> >     takes a document
>> >      >    and an XPath, is that enough?
>> >      >
>> >      >    Norm wonders if the WG thinks that's all we need
>> >      >
>> >      >    Henry: If you need something really complicated, you can write
>> an
>> >      >    arbitrarily complicated computation that produces a document.
>> >      >    ... And then switch on that conditional.
>> >      >
>> >      >    Proposal: The pipeline conditional component is XPath
>> >     expression over
>> >      >    document. If you need more, build a document and use that?
>> >      >
>> >      >    Accepted.
>> >
>> >
>> >     I've been thinking a bit more about this issue. On the assumption
>> that
>> >     we allow specifying pipeline parameters (like step/component
>> parameters
>> >     - which I would like to have in the language), shouldn't we allow
>> >     conditionals over these parameters? I wouldn't like to have to
>> produce a
>> >     document for activating a simple debug flag inside an XProc-based
>> >     application, for instance.
>> >
>> >
>> >     Rui
>>
>
>--
>Innovimax SARL
>Consulting, Training & XML Development
>9, impasse des Orteaux
>75020 Paris
>Tel : +33 8 72 475787
>Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
>http://www.innovimax.fr
>RCS Paris 488.018.631
>SARL au capital de 10.000 
------=_Part_73_18014443.1144665673141--
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2006 09:46:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:47 GMT