W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Fodder for the @name proposal

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:55:22 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m27if8pfad.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Toman_Vojtech@emc.com was heard to say:
[...]
|> > I find now that I want to refer to the pipeline input. I can't put
|> > a name up there, so I have to invent a namespace and a type:
|> 
|> No you don't (I didn't in _my_ example [1]):
|> 
|>  <p:pipeline xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc"
|>              type="mypipe">
|> 
|> ...
|> 
|>        <p:pipe step="mypipe" port="source"/>
|> 
|> is all you need.
|> 
|> ht
|
| Is it really so? I had a similar problem, but I came to the conclusion
| that you always have to use a non-null namespace in the "type" attribute
| - simply because p:pipeline is just a special case of p:declare-step,
| which demands that type is in a non-null namespace.

Right you are! I thought we'd made that restriction, but didn't find it
at the time.

So. We're back to having awkward irrelevant namespace declarations in
order to refer to the inputs of a pipeline explicitly, or we're
removing the "no null namespace" restriction.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Clearness is so eminently one of the
http://nwalsh.com/            | characteristics of truth that often it
                              | even passes for truth itself.-- Joubert

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 14:56:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 April 2008 14:56:01 GMT