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

Re: Naming ports vs. naming documents

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:42:50 -0700
Message-ID: <4828ceec0604281742x4a82739crebde0419ea7fc418@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On 4/28/06, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
> I have to say, on the whole, I prefer the labelled ports approach for
> several reasons:
> [...]

It looks to me like we are getting closer to a consensus on the issue
of how steps are connected. Is is fair to say that this group thinks
that the primary way to connect the output A of a step with the input
B of another step, is to assign a label to A and make a reference to
that label in B?

> I think we do want a mechanism for indicating that a component
> produces an output with a URI so that some other component can access
> it, but I don't think I want to expose all of the plumbing that way.

In a stylesheet, we would like to be able to write: <xsl:import
href="someURI"/>, where someURI is a reference to output of a step in
the pipeline. Instead of assigning the URI to the output, as in
<p:output name="..." produces="someURI"/>, I think it is better to
make the connection explicit between the step that produces the
document and the one that consumes the document (see [1] for a
discussion on this topic), as in:

    <p:step name="...">
        <p:output label="step-1-output"/>

    <p:step name="xslt">
        <p:define-uri uri="someURI" ref="step-1-output"/>

The URI defined here would be valid just during the execution of the
step where it is defined. Then in the stylesheet one can write
<xsl:import href="someURI"/> which will go read the output labeled

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3113

Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):
Received on Saturday, 29 April 2006 00:43:07 UTC

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