Re: What is passed between processes?

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.
>