W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: non-matched output port

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:06:23 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87y7k9h8s0.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| For
| Head (p:head)
| Matching Documents (p:subsequence)
| Tail (p:tail)
| I propose to add "dual port" or "non matched" output port which will
| output the rest in a sequence

I suppose the incremental cost is small. What do others think?

| The same for
| Delete (p:delete)
| Replace (p:replace)
| it would generate a sequence of the node deleted or replaced in a sequence

I don't understand what you mean for these two. Consider:

  <p:input port="source">
      <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
	  <script language="Javascript">
	    /* Nothing really here */
	  <p>This is a test. This is only a test. Had this 
	  been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror
	  and you would not have been informed.</p>
  <p:option name="target" value="h:script"

What would be produced on the other port? A document consisting
of a single h:script element?

What would the processor do if the delete expression selected only a
text node or something else that can't be an XML document?

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | 'I have done that,' says my memory. 'I
http://nwalsh.com/            | cannot have done that'--says my pride,
                              | and remains adamant. At last--memory
                              | yields.-- Nietzsche

Received on Monday, 30 April 2007 21:06:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:42 UTC