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

RE: Extensibility of c:result

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:26:14 -0400
Message-ID: <997C307BEB90984EBE935699389EC41C01348A33@CORPUSMX70C.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
The content-model of c:result is overloaded already in the XProc specification itself: see the p:exec step. For text output with wrap-result-lines=true, it produces the following result:

 

<c:result>

  <c:line>line1</c:line>

  <c:line>line2</c:line>

  …

</c:result>

 

But I don't think the content model of c:result is defined anywhere in the spec (and I am not sure it is a good idea to do that. IMHO, it is just a wrapper with no special meaning). Section 7 (Standard Step Library) says that: "…several steps use this element for result information:

 

<c:result>

    string

</c:result>

"

 

but I read this more as a hint of what to expect from a typical standard XProc step.

 

I remember raising this long time ago but I think the conclusion of the WG was that this not really an issue.

 

--

 

For EXProc, my opinion is that we can just fix the problem of distinguishing between a successful/unsuccessful c:result easily by saying that if you use fail-on-error=false, you get an c:error document, and not a c:result document. Or something like that.

 

Vojtech

 

 

From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Innovimax SARL
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 1:05 PM
To: XProc WG
Subject: Extensibility of c:result

 

Dear,

 

I think this is the right place for that discussion

 

We use for the moment c:result in many places in the spec, but the way it is used is not extensible

 

The content is most of the time a single string as a direct child

 

I know we moved on from attribute because it was hard to get the infomation from it, but could we better go for an extra wrapper ?


<c:result>

  <uri>http://....</uri>

</c:result>

 

I'm saying this because I already see some problem of using c:result for example when there is an error or not (in exproc pxf:copy) : we should be able to make the difference between those two

 

Of course, we could expect that if we will need extension then we will add an extra attribute to c:result, like @version=2 telling that you will need special care about the content, but it will make existing pipeline non conformant

 

The second point, is that a conformant implementation might need to output extra information using it's own namespace and that would not be possible (unless using attribute which is pretty limited)

 

Mohamed


-- 
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 Tuesday, 20 April 2010 11:26:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 April 2010 11:26:54 GMT