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

Re: The Scope of Step Names

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:27:53 -0700
Message-ID: <45214C19.5040409@milowski.org>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Erik Bruchez wrote:
> 
> Alex Milowski wrote:
> 
>  > 1. Step must be able to refer to other steps that are
>  >    siblings (preceding and following) otherwise you
>  >    can't connected steps at all.
> 
> "Preceding siblings" would be enough IMO.

And yet another example of where you wouldn't want this:

I have a pipeline with steps:

    validate -> xinclude -> transform

but the input document doesn't validate.  So I quickly
change, as an experiment, the input mappings to

    xinclude -> validate -> transform.

Oh, but that pipeline won't compile because the "preceding sibling"
rule wasn't satisfied.  Now I have to change the element order
to get it to compile.  But, as a user, the change was completely
clear.

Yes, the order of the steps isn't the order of the flow... but I
don't care about that because I'm just experimenting with the
pipeline.

When the pipeline gets more complex, this is going to get worse.  As
a user, I'm going to get angry with the WG for that constraint.

In all these messages, I'm trying to point out "good" reason why, when
the compiler *can* figure this out, we shouldn't have an seemly
arbitrary restriction for the user.

--Alex Milowski
Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 17:28:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:49 GMT