- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:56:40 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87lkcvgsef.fsf@nwalsh.com>
The main reason I see for allowing the step/port to be defaulted on
p:pipe is to continue our drive towards syntactic cleanliness.
Consider:
<p:pipeline>
<p:input port="document" primary="yes"/>
<p:input port="stylehseet"/>
<p:xinclude/>
<p:xslt>
<p:input port="stylesheet">
???
</p:input>
</p:xslt>
</p:pipeline>
The primary input, the document, flows naturally through the pipeline.
But in order to link the pipeline's stylesheet input to the XSLT step,
we need to add a name to the pipeline and fully qualify the port:
<p:pipeline name="main">
<p:input port="document" primary="yes"/>
<p:input port="stylehseet"/>
<p:xinclude/>
<p:xslt>
<p:input port="stylesheet">
<p:pipe step="main" port="stylesheet"/>
</p:input>
</p:xslt>
</p:pipeline>
If we allowed the step and port to be defaulted, then we could simply
say:
<p:pipeline>
<p:input port="document" primary="yes"/>
<p:input port="stylehseet"/>
<p:xinclude/>
<p:xslt>
<p:input port="stylesheet">
<p:pipe port="stylesheet"/>
</p:input>
</p:xslt>
</p:pipeline>
Similarly, in cases where a subsequent step wanted the primary output
From another step, it could simply refer to the step and not bother
with "port='result'".
I don't feel strongly about it, but it seems not unreasonable to me.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything should be made as simple as
http://nwalsh.com/ | possible, but no simpler.
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 15:56:52 UTC