- From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:30:39 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
> | I don't remember any technical grounds on which an XPath syntax was
> | rejected.
>
> I assume you mean
>
> <p:input port="document" source="step/port"/>
>
> If you think that that's XPath then you must be imagining that it's
> an abbreviated syntax for:
>
> <p:input port="document" source="stepname::step/portname::port"/>
>
> Where XProc adds two new axis to XPath, stepname:: and portname::
Right.
I'd make the default axis the 'step' axis and have the default
axis for step parents be the 'port' axis. Then you get:
step/port
If you don't like the default axis changing, then you get:
step/port::port
>
> That looks like an *awfully* large amount of work with all sorts of
> subtle consequences.
Two axis names does not seem like too much work to me. We'll have to
describe the semantics anyway. If we have our own syntax, we'll
have to describe that grammar. Seems like the amount of work would
be the same.
--Alex Milowski
Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 18:31:08 UTC