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

Re: MIME type and fragid syntax?

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:37:35 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87lkcn9rfk.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ "Alex Milowski" <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
| On 8/7/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
|> Are we going to define a MIME type (application/xproc+xml?) and
|> a fragment identifier syntax so that it is possible to point
|> to steps/ports/etc. from outside a pipeline document?
|
| Yes, we should define a mime type.
|
| I'm not sure how the fragment identifier would work with nested
| steps.

My thinking in the shower this morning was:

 #step-name/childstep-name^port-name
 #step-name/step-name$option-name

So #step-name finds the first (in document-order) step named
'step-name'. If that's not unique, you can do:

  #step-name/childstep-name

which finds the first step named 'childstep-name' that is a child of
the first step named 'step-name'. Repeat as deep as you need.

I think that our rules for the scope of step names guarantee that that
simple algorithm will always uniquely find a step.

I don't think we need to support pointing to p:logs or p:parameters.
But we could invent something more complex if we needed to.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Mankind are always happy for having
http://nwalsh.com/            | been happy; so that if you make them
                              | happy now, you make them happy twenty
                              | years hence by the memory of
                              | it.--Sydney Smith

Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 17:37:46 GMT

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