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

Re: Re: Proposal for subordinate source elements

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:43:35 +0100
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0612070043y7b0221c5jf8c48c44c63757c8@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alessandro Vernet" <avernet@orbeon.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Alessandro,

I think we have two choice at this time

1/ Keeping the model with few elements, but a lot of data models (up to 4
data models for the p:output and p:input element)
or
2/ Adding Three new elements and having less Polymorphims of elements

I may be wrong but I think what gives more headache to pipeline hand writer,
and also for code completion tools, is especially the first case

Mohamed

On 12/7/06, Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/6/06, Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com > wrote:
> > P.S. Any other discussion before tomorrow's call?
>
> Murray,
>
> <p:internal step="step1" port="result" />, <p:external href="..." />,
> and <p:here> here document</p:here> do look good: they are consistent
> and readable. However, I have been writing quite a few pipelines over
> the last few years, and I can't help thinking about those who will be
> doing the same in XProc over the next few years. So while I like how
> readable and consistent your proposal is, I am afraid that by adding
> those elements we would be going down the road of XML Schema or WSDL:
> we would be creating a syntax so verbose that those who will have to
> use it will hate it.
>
> Alex
> --
> Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):
> http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
>
>


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 08:43:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:49 GMT