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

Re: Naming

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:54:31 +0100
Message-ID: <44E31587.40001@jenitennison.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

Alex Milowski wrote:
>> We define the inputs and outputs of pipelines, groups and so on using 
>> a combination of these elements, by nesting the binding element <pipe> 
>> within the port definition <input> and <output>. You don't have to use 
>> a 'to' attribute: the pipe goes to the port that the <pipe> appears in.
> 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>

I'd actually intended 'here' documents to be nested inside the <pipe>. 
In a <step>, they have to be, in order to indicate which port the 'here' 
document is associated with:

<step kind="xslt" name="transform">
   <pipe to="source" from="validated!result" />
   <pipe to="stylesheet">
     <xsl:stylesheet ...>...</xsl:stylesheet>

and I think it would be best to avoid having <pipe> work differently 
within <step>s from how it does within <input>/<output>. So I'd suggest 
we do 'here' documents for outputs with:

<pipeline name="ex1">
    <output name="result">
        <mydoc xmlns="">...</mydoc>

(I'm all in favour of 'here' documents for outputs: I think it's 
essential for <choose>.)


Jeni Tennison
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2006 12:54:44 UTC

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