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

Re: Inputs/outputs and auxiliary documents

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:44:09 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87acapnwna.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|> Alex proposes, if I understood correctly, that we can solve both of
|> these problems if we make the auxiliary document relationship
|> explicit:
|
| I like this approach. However, I thought on two issues that may difficult it:
|
| 1) Imagine the following pipeline:
|
| <p:pipeline>
|   <p:input name="doc" />
|   <p:output name="fulldoc" />
|
|   <p:step name="xinclude">
|     <p:input name="document" label="$doc" />
|     <p:output name="output" label="$fulldoc" />
|   </p:step>
| </p:pipeline>
|

| If I know a priori which resources are referenced inside $doc, I may
| add p:input (or p:aux-input) elements to the pipeline step. What if
| I don't know these when defining the pipeline? A typical example
| relates to gluing operations (as opposed to chunking operations),
| either XInclude-based or doc() based (think feed aggregation).

Can you think of a practical example where

1. The pipeline generates the auxiliary documents,
2. A subsequent component includes them,
3. They don't flow over an input/output pipe between the components, and
4. You don't know the URIs of the relevant auxiliary documents?

I can't.

| 2) Chunking: how can we identify multiple outputs from chunking
| operations? Maybe referencing them on a regex-based label?

I expect the chunked output to flow through the input/output pipe. If
you can't predict the names of the chunks, how can you refer to them
by name later?

|> P.S. I actually think we should just use p:input/p:output for this
|> purpose. An p:input or p:output element with no name and an href
|> attribute would serve the purpose and wouldn't require a new element
|> name. They are, after all, inputs and outputs.
|
| I agree. Going a bit on detail, maybe marking the main input/output is
| preferred, as opposed to marking *each* auxiliar input/output.

My thinking was simply that what distinguishes a pipe from an aux
document is the presence of a name attribute.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
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 Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:44:17 GMT

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