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

Re: Fileutils

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 06:05:05 +0100
Message-ID: <711a73df0905252205w5f48a42bqb33779d6f5a21d7a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
2009/5/25 Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>:
> Dave's Ant/XProc thread of a few days ago makes it clear that some
> pipelines are going to want to interact with the local filesystem.
> This seems like the ideal place for exproc; these steps aren't part of
> the XProc 1.0 standard, but there's no reason we implementors can't
> agree on their semantics and what they're called.
> Before I try to write these up as extensions, let's see if we can all
> agree on the semantics that we think would be most useful. Here's what
> I've implemented so far, with a few notes.

How about a simpler list of 'user requirements' Norm?
touch (create empty file)
delete (file|directories [recurse])
copy (file|directory [recurse])
mv (file|directory)
Retrieve value of a system property
Retrieve list of file properties (R|W|X....)

(I've never used 'is readable|writable|exists - but I can see it being useful)
(rename? I'd prefer move)

> Q: Should "file" be made absolute wrt to the current base URI, or left
> unchanged (effectively making it relative to the implementations
> notion of current working directory)?

Any use made of PATH variable?
Treat as per current OS, i.e. could be relative or absolute?
Using base URI would make it 'odd' wrt other file utils?
I.e. that is XML only, whereas fileutils is OS based?
Some conflict there

Minor disagreement with your list!


Dave Pawson
Docbook FAQ.
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 05:05:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:03:05 UTC