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

Re: Re: Naming

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 00:23:33 -0700
Message-ID: <4828ceec0608090023q7c29812mda5df7e38823d354@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>


On 8/8/06, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote:
> > - @save="URI": saves the selected documents with the base URI supplied
> If this is for debugging purposes, I'd say that implementors have
> an easy handle (e.g. step-name!port ) with which a user can specify
> that they'd like that input/output saved for debugging inspection.
> So, maybe we don't need this right now.

I agree.

> > - @wrap="QName": wraps the documents into a single document
> This could be very useful.  The implementation cost seems low to
> me.

Yes, indeed.

> I really like this idea.   This also gives us a way to use
> "here" documents to specify static outputs.
> The use case for static outputs is where you have many different
> pipelines that need to have the same input/output signature but
> specific pipelines don't need to produce all outputs.  If you
> have "here" documents for outputs, you can place some kind of
> "NOP" XML into that output:
> <pipeline name="ex1">
>     ...
>     <output name="result">
>        <mydoc>...</mydoc>
>     </output>
> </pipeline>

Are you saying that in this case, the pipeline output 'result' will
always be the inline <mydoc> document, and that the data won't come
from an step!port inside the pipeline?

Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 2006 07:23:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:40 UTC