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

Re: p:for-each

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:32:50 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87y7uft8x9.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> was heard to say:
| I guess there is no compelling reason to keep a separate input on the
| <p:for-each>. So I removed it in [1]. However, I am not sure about
| about using the same <p:declare-output> we have on the pipeline. On
| the pipeline it looks like:
| <p:declare-output port="..." ref="..."/>
| But on the <p:for-each> it would make more sense to use 'name' instead
| of 'port', so every 'ref' references a 'name'.

But ref's can already point at ports.

  <p:pipeline name="pipe">
    <p:declare-output port="result">

    <p:step kind="foo">
      <p:output name="result" ref="#pipe/result"/>

| To avoid the confusion,
| we can keep a different name:
| <p:for-each-output name="..." ref="..."/>
| The situation is the same for the output of <p:choose> where could have:
| <p:choose-output name="..." ref="..."/>

I would really like to avoid having a whole bunch of different flavors
of input/output or declare-input/declare-output if we can avoid it.

|> I avoid 'for'. Ought not to have been in XPath 2.0 dang it. :-)
| One undeniable benefit of the 'for' in XPath 2.0 is that it makes for
| heated debates that quite enjoyable over beers :).

Hmm, I think I might deny that that's a benefit, but I'll wait and do
it over a beer. :-)

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Received on Thursday, 27 July 2006 14:32:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:40 UTC