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

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

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

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