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

Re: Proposal for p:variable

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:29:05 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2hcf1l5pq.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| instead of this
|
| subpipeline = (p:for-each
| |p:viewport |
| p:choose |p:group
| |p:try |p:*atomic*
| |*pfx:user-pipeline* |
| p:documentation|p:pipeinfo|p:variable)*
|
| can we try
|
| subpipeline = (p:variable|p:documentation|p:pipeinfo)*,(p:for-each
| |p:viewport |
| p:choose |p:group
| |p:try |p:*atomic*
| |*pfx:user-pipeline* |
| p:documentation|p:pipeinfo)*

I don't think that would be sufficient. You could still say:

<p:variable name="data" select="//p[1]">
  <p:pipe port="result" step="fw"/>
</p:variable>

<p:xslt name="one">
  <p:input port="source" .../>
  <p:input port="stylesheet" .../>
  <p:with-param name="data" select="$data"/>
</p:xslt>

<p:xslt name="fw">
  <p:input port="stylesheet" .../>
</p:xslt>

which is horribly circular. I think the simplest solution is to say
that it is a static error if the xpath context of a p:variable refers
to any step that is among its siblings.

Saying that the xpath context of a p:variable is always an empty
document strikes me as too limiting.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh  | You must not think me necessarily
http://nwalsh.com/            | foolish because I am facetious, nor
                              | will I consider you necessarily wise
                              | because you are grave.--Sydney Smith

Received on Thursday, 20 March 2008 16:29:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 March 2008 16:29:47 GMT