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

Re: Simple syntax

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:00:46 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87zmirne2p.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Personally, I think that "save" should actually mean "register" rather than
| "write" and that it should be implementation-defined whether the document
| actually gets written to the URI. (I.e. use the XSLT 2.0 model where the result
| of a transformation is a sequence of documents associated with different base
| URIs, and it's up to the processor what happens with them.)

Yes, I agree.

|> If two (or more) steps use the same input, can we assume the pipeline
|> engine will be able to infer the tees?
| The only problem I can see would be if the pipeline engine wasn't able to infer
| that two or more steps used the same input before the second use occurred. That
| could happen if the engine didn't look at the entire pipeline definition ahead
| of starting the processing

Yes, implicit in my question was the requirement that pipelines
perform an analysis of the whole pipeline before starting.

| or if it couldn't be inferred from the pipeline
| definition that two steps actually used the same input.

I think for explicit p:input statements, that doesn't happen, though we
do have that issue with implicit inputs.

| I don't think either of
| these can occur with the current design, but I think we need to steer clear of
| dynamic inclusion of pipeline documents.


                                        Be seeing you,

Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Wednesday, 12 April 2006 13:00:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:39 UTC