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

Re: Proposal for p:variable

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:04:44 +0100
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0803251704g5fa29a82t98656d0c136494ac@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Ok digging through I find some problems I see at first glance :

It is said

[[ The p:documentation<http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#p.documentation>element
is not shown, but it is allowed anywhere. ]]

but it is explicitely shown in the production of sub-pipeline

Please remove it from there, it is confusing

-----

Please do the same for p:pipeinfo (I mean when the FIXME will be filled)

-----

One point I'm doing most of the time is documenting an input, and I want, if
I remove the input, that the documentation will be considerate as no more
accurate

I propose for that purpose, to add to p:documentation an new attribute
@refid which should refer to the value of an @xml:id attribute which provide
the ability to properly document pipeline and to have a security in case, I
suppress the element I was documenting (then the @refid would point to
nothing) which could be given as a warning by an XProc processor in a
interoperable way

-----

Ok let's me try to arrive to the end of the path, I sketched

subpipeline = (p:variable)*,(p:for-each |p:viewport | p:choose | p:group |
p:try | p:*atomic* | *pfx:user-pipeline* )*

(note that I remove p:pipeinfo and p:documentation since they can appear
everywhere)

If we say that

the context of evaluation of p:variable is composed of the option that are
declared before and all but the step of the siblings output port


Mohamed

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:

> / 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
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2008 00:05:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 26 March 2008 00:05:28 GMT