W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > May 2009

Re: xproc as an alternative to Apache ant

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:31:36 +0100
Message-ID: <711a73df0905250931k7504ce27s9ac76c37269320a0@mail.gmail.com>
To: xproc-dev@w3.org
2009/5/25 James Sulak <jsulak@gmail.com>:

> <p:variable name="output_folder"
> select="//c:param[@name='output_folder']/@value">
>   <p:pipe port="parameters" step="pipeline"/>
> </p:variable>
>
> But that gets clunky fast if you have a lot of options you want to assign.

Bad enough referencing them, using them is really clunky!


>
> I think is what Dave really wants (correct me if I'm wrong).

Yes... but not quite so clunky :-)

 I hadn't
> really thought of it until Dave brought it up, but having this sort of
> options file, like an Ant properties file, would be incredibly useful
> for making configurable pipelines.  Almost essential for certain
> applications.  It really needs to be done with options or variables;

variables seems like the right name to me.

> parameters sets are only immediately useful for XSLT and similar steps
> (without jumping through additional hoops to turn them into variables
> or refer to them through XPath).  So I hope that that exproc
> configuration schema gets widely adopted.


What about using them?
IMHO the xslt model is ideal?
defined in xml, used as $variableName

Then when I import (or bring into the pipeline) the variables,
I can resolve one against the earlier ones?

<var name='x' value='$x/a/b'/>


regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 16:32:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 25 May 2009 16:32:13 GMT