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

Re: Directed vs Generic Syntax

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:34:41 -0700
Message-ID: <4828ceec0604191734i441c38ffm758f3525c39a2a09@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On 4/13/06, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> After some consideration, I think I prefer <p:step name="p:xslt"> to
> <p:xslt> and I am confident that I prefer <p:input> and <p:ouput> over
> attributes. For one thing, it means that I can do this:
>
>   <p:step name="p:xslt">
>     <p:input name="document">
>       <doc>
>        <p>Some data</p>
>       </doc>
>     </p:input>
>     ...

Alex/Norm,

I have to agree with Norm on the question of syntax being discussed here:

1) The schema for the language would depend on the components provided
by a given implementation. This is the case with in Ant, but is
otherwise fairly unconventional.
2) Extending the pipeline language becomes harder. Say we want in the
future the pipeline author to be able to specify that a given input or
output has to be valid according to a schema. We would be unable to
just add an attribute "schema" on <p:input> or <p:output>.
3) The syntax imposes unnecessary restrictions: inputs and outputs
must have different names, an input cannot be named "input" and an
output cannot be named "output".
4) It becomes impossible to know without knowing the interface of the
component being used if a attribute corresponds to an input or an
output.

Alex
--
Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):
http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 00:34:50 GMT

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