W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Source input on p:filter

From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:57:01 +0200
Message-ID: <o2v546c6c1c1004090557o9db32011s5407d2163b34bcc7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Well... I don't think that we screwed up

We were consistent in having step that take one document and let the
user manage himself the iteration (like the proposal you gave)

Especially if there is no added value on wrapping it with a p:for-each
like in this case

Mohamed




On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> "Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes:
>>> Please tell me there was some good and compelling reason why the
>> source
>>> port on p:filter does not accept a sequence. Please tell me we didn't
>>> just screw up.
>>
>> ......I think we did.
>
> Blast. Well, at least it's easy to work around:
>
> <p:declare-step type="x:filter-sequence">
>  <p:input port="source" sequence="true"/>
>  <p:output port="result" sequence="true"/>
>  <p:option name="select" required="true"/>
>  <p:for-each>
>   <p:filter>
>    <p:with-option name="select" select="$select"/>
>   </p:filter>
>  </p:for-each>
> </p:declare-step>
>
> But...damnit.
>
>                    Be seeing you,
>                     norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Even while a thing is in the act of
> http://nwalsh.com/      | coming into existence, some part of it
>               | has already ceased to be.--Marcus
>               | Aurelius
>



-- 
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 Friday, 9 April 2010 12:57:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 9 April 2010 12:57:36 GMT