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, 26 Apr 2006 12:01:22 -0700
Message-ID: <4828ceec0604261201lfbacb6cwd5fc33327afbc455@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org


You are making good points in favor of the "<p:xslt>" syntax, even if
I still favor the "<p:step>" syntax. But maybe this is too early to
talk about syntax and I suggest we postpone this discussion until we
have made more progress on other issues.


On 4/20/06, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote:
> Alessandro Vernet wrote:
> > On 4/13/06, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> It is an extension to the schema.  If we write our schema properly,
> that's OK.
> > 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>.
> No harder than adding an extension element in XSLT.
> I'm imaging a two part solution to "custom" steps:
>    1. A generic "run the step called X" step.
>    2. A directed syntax where an step can have its own XML structure
>       to simplify its use.  This is much like how tasks get defined
>       in Ant.
> > 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".
> That's up to the extension to figure out and tell the compiler.
> > 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.
> I don't see this as impossible. Components still have to declare their
> signatures for the compiler to know things like you gave it two inputs
> and it only takes one and so that's an error.
> --Alex Milowski

Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 19:01:35 UTC

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