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

Re: Two renames

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:02:47 +0100
Message-ID: <466FEAF7.7040105@jenitennison.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
> | A bit confusing when we have <p:pipe step="..." source="..." />. We
> | use 'source' as a generic term for something you can read documents
> | from, so that might become confusing. What about p:resource?
> 
> Uhm. As Henry suggested and Mohamed pointed out, what we have is
> 
> <p:pipe
>   step = NCName
>   port = NCName />
> 
> We used to have "source", I think, back when we had attributes and the
> attribute value was structured: source="step!port".

Sorry, my brain's auto-update function must be malfunctioning.

> So in light of that, does p:source work?

As far as I'm concerned, only if we change all the rest of the uses of 
source in the spec and the language. For example, <p:iteration-source>, 
<p:viewport-source>, the use of port="source", the use of 'source' as a 
generic term for the port from which a document sequence is piped, and 
so on...

See, for example, 3.3 Associating Documents with Ports:

   [Definition: A binding associates an input or output port with some
   data source.] A document or a sequence of documents can be bound to a
   port in four ways: **by source**, by URI, by providing it inline, or
   explicitly empty.

In fact, our use of 'source' is muddled generally, but I don't see that 
as a reason to add to the confusion!

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2007 13:02:54 GMT

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