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

Defaulting step and port on p:pipe

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:53 GMT