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

Re: A "processing model" proposal

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:05:54 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <874q2xbyb1.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
>
|> Alex's observations made me realize I just wrote the wrong thing.
|> I meant to say:
|>
|>    <p:pipeline>
|>      <p:stage name="validate"/>
|>      <p:stage name="xinclude"/>
|>      <p:stage name="validate">
|>        <p:output href="someOtherURI-One"/>
|>      <p:stage>
|>      <p:stage name="xslt">
|>        <p:input href="someOtherURI-Two"/>
|>        <p:param name="stylesheet" href="style.xsl"/>
|>      </p:stage>
|>    </p:pipeline>
>
| Shouldn't:
>
|   <p:output href="someOtherURI-One"/>
>
| read as:
>
|   <p:input href="someOtherURI-One"/>

No. I meant to build a case where it was obvious that parallelism was
possible. In this case, the first three stages and the last are
unrelated so can clearly be done in parallel.

OTOH, if the input the second validate was someOtherURI-One, that
would make the first two stages, the third stage, and the last stage
all indpendent. So, "yes", that would work too :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Friday, 17 February 2006 19:05:58 GMT

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