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

Re: Inputs/outputs and auxiliary documents

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:11:26 -0700
Message-ID: <443EB06E.3020101@milowski.org>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

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:
> 
> <p:pipeline>
>   <p:input name="doc"/>
>   <p:output name="output"/>
> 
>   <p:step name="p:xslt">
>     <p:input name="document" label="$doc"/>
>     <p:input name="stylesheet" href="generator.xsl"/>
>     <p:output name="output" label="fragment"/>
>     <p:aux-output href="frag.xsl"/>
>   </p:step>
> 
>   <p:step name="p:xslt">
>     <p:input name="document" label="$doc"/>
>     <p:input name="stylesheet" href="base.xsl"/>
>     <p:aux-input href="frag.xsl"/>
>     <p:output name="output" label="$output"/>
>   </p:step>
> </p:pipeline>

Yes.  This was what I was thinking.


> 
> 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 with this as well.

What I'd propose is this:

   1. Every output is required to have a label/id that can be used for
      creating input dependencies.

   2. Every output can have an optional 'href' for labeling it with
      a URI that will, in use, be assumed to be the base URI of the
      document.

This means that input referencing is exactly the same in all steps
and that "auxillary documents"--those by names, are really for
XML technologies (e.g. XSLT) where they use URI values to reference
documents.

-- 
--Alex Milowski
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2006 20:11:36 GMT

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