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

Re: A "processing model" proposal

From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:37:15 +0000 (GMT)
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060216223715.E9C7C5A4DAD@macintosh.inf.ed.ac.uk>

> I have no problem with:
> 
>   <p:stage name=3D"someFunkyThing">
>     <p:output name=3D"p1"/>
>     <p:output name=3D"p2"/>
>   </p:stage>
> 
> and then some other stages later on:
> 
>   <p:stage name=3D"someOtherFunkyThing">
>     <p:input name=3D"p1"/>
>   </p:stage>
> 
>   <p:stage name=3D"someOtherOtherFunkyThing">
>     <p:input name=3D"p2"/>
>   </p:stage>

Yes, that's the sort of thing I was thinking of.

> | I also want a single output to be
> | connectable to multiple steps' inputs, but we could have (conceptually
> | at least) a "tee" component that produces multiple copies of its
> | input.
> 
> I think that's fine as long as they're labeled. I think we should make
> infosets immutable. That is, a process can transform A to produce B,
> but A still exists and hasn't been changed.

Conceptually, yes.  If two steps have the same infoset as input, then
one step shouldn't be able to change what the other one sees.  In terms
of APIs, an implementation might want to make infosets mutable, in which
case it must provide separate copies.  Sending one infoset to two steps
also has implications for streaming, of course.

-- Richard
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2006 22:37:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:47 GMT