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

Re: A proposal to restructure our top-level syntax

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:08:26 -0800
Message-ID: <4828ceec0712130808s678ce762mf7c317c2d797ce6b@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

On Dec 13, 2007 2:21 AM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> I wasn't suggesting it _would_ be allowed.  My proposal is to make
> p:pipeline a convenience for the 90% case:  it effectively corresponds
> to a p:pipeline-library containing a single p:declare-step with
> attributes and contents taken from the p:pipeline.  That's just a way
> of thinking about, or defining its semantics -- it's up to the editor
> whether, if we adopt this in principle, he describes it that way, or
> in its own terms.

Right, if we go with the p:declare-step / p:pipeline proposal, it
would certainly be up to the editor to decide if he wants to describe
one in term of a special case of the other. Understood.

With this in mind, I was wondering why we would need 2 distinct
constructs: can't we have just one construct, which can be used both
in a p:pipeline-library and on its own (root element)? The benefit is
two-fold: you simplify the language by having only one construct
instead of two, and more importantly you make every single pipeline a
reusable piece of code, just as if it was declared in a pipeline
library.

Alex
-- 
Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms, open-source, for the Enterprise
http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 16:08:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT