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

Re: <input> for <pipeline>

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:09:40 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2abqxh7az.fsf@nwalsh.com>
By way of an attempt to justify allowing default bindings for p:input
on p:pipeline, consider this pipeline:

<p:pipeline xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/2007/03/xproc"
<p:input port="source">
  <p:document href="langspec.xml"/>

<p:xinclude name="xinclude"/>

<p:validate-relax-ng name="validate">
  <p:input port="schema">
    <p:document href="../schema/dbspec.rng"/>

<p:xslt2 name="style">
  <p:input port="stylesheet">
    <p:document href="../style/dbspec.xsl"/>

<p:store name="store">
  <p:option name="href" value="langspec.html"/>


It processes the XProc language specification. If you don't provide any
binding for "source", its default behavior is to process langspec.xml.

If, however, I want to process some variant draft, I can easily do so
by binding "source" to some other document when I call the pipeline.

This seems like useful behavior to me.

With respect to called pipelines, I think I could be persuaded to go
either way. That is, for non-primary inputs either require a binding
as I believe is the case today or allow a defaulted binding to apply.
(With respect to unbound primary inputs, there is no question, that
will be bound to the default readable port.)

But I'm not likely to lie down in the road over it, I guess, if the
consensus of the WG is to remove this feature.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything should be made as simple as
http://nwalsh.com/            | possible, but no simpler.

Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 16:09:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:44 UTC