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

Re: What is passed between processes?

From: Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:15:59 +0000
Message-ID: <43C3F9DF.5040007@di.fc.ul.pt>
To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
CC: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
I believe that if each component *type* (e.g. xslt, xinclude) defines 
its representation, an algorithm could verify each junction. 
Nevertheless, having a low common denominator (e.g. xml canon) will 
disable features on some components (e.g. XPath2-based components).

Also, we can reduce some complexity by introducing a mechanism similar 
to Cocoon's "generate" element.

Rui


Robin Berjon wrote:
> 
> On Jan 10, 2006, at 18:51, Norman Walsh wrote:
> 
>> To the extent possible, I'd like the exact representation passed
>> between processes to be an implementation detail. On the one hand, I
>> think we'll get a lot of pushback if an implmentation that passes SAX
>> events between components can't be conformant to our spec. On the
>> other, implementations built around XPath2/XSLT2/XQuery are obviously
>> going to want to pass XDM instances around and I want those to be
>> conformant too.
> 
> 
> Could this be addressed by requiring each component to specify its  
> preferred input and output types (sax, dom, xdm, xml, exi, etc. --  with 
> a requirement on all components to accept "xml") and coming up  with a 
> simple algorithm to pick the best input/output match at each  junction 
> (possibly also requiring that the implementation should  provide at 
> least certain adapters)?
> 
> This makes it an implementation detail, but one for which preferences  
> can be expressed where components need to interoperate.
> 

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 18:16:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:46 GMT