- From: David A. Lee <dlee@calldei.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:31:45 -0400
- To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- CC: "'Philippe Poulard'" <philippe.poulard@sophia.inria.fr>, "'Kurt Cagle'" <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>, rjelliffe@allette.com.au, xml-dev@lists.xml.org, "'XProc Dev'" <xproc-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4AC21A51.4040604@calldei.com>
Thanks Michael. In my mind, for this spec, ease of implementation
trumps borrowing from existing specs if you cant in fact reuse existing
technology.
e.g from what I can see
<xsl:sequence select="xs:positiveInteger('5')"/>
Has the advantage of borrowing from existing specs (xslt) but is
overweighted by the complexity of implementing the parser for say
"xs:positiveInteger('5')"
Not only would one have to write a parser for
<TYPE> '(' value ')'
(not too hard)
But because it is borrowing from existing specs the implication would be
that we'd have to parse *anything* that could otherwise be in select="..."
That would require a full blown XPATH 2.0 parser.
Now of course we could refine the spec to limit the subset of XPATH 2.0
which is allowed to be in the select="" to only a small set of lexical
elements.
But then we're diverging from the original purpose of borrowing from
existing specs which is that they are familiar, we dont have to
re-document them, and they mean in this new spec fundamentally what they
meant in the spec were borrowing from.
Given that I'm going to suggest atomic values be represented as a new
element like
<atomicValue value="5" type="xs:positiveInteger"/>.
But try to reuse the other suggested XSLT elements for documents,
elements etc.
All in a new namespace .. (because they are not actually the same thing
as xsl: even if they are based on it).
I'm a bit on the fence if atomic values should have the value as an
attribute or body.
Attributes make sense for small values like the above, but what a very
common case of huge text.
*<atomicValue value="This is a huge block of text
....
1000000 lines later" type="xs:string" />*
Gives me the impression the value should be in the body.
*<atomicValue type="xs:string">This is a huge block of text
....
1000000 lines later</atomicValue>
*
Could always support both variants :(
David A. Lee
dlee@calldei.com
http://www.calldei.com
http://www.xmlsh.org
812-482-5224
Michael Kay wrote:
>
> The first question I have in mind is how do we parse this. This one
> example of Michaels has me a little confused:
>
> <xsl:sequence select="xs:positiveInteger('5')"/>
>
> This is the proposal for how to represent a typed atomic value.
> This is pretty obscure to my novice eyes. Reading this I wouldn't
> guess off hand that this means "Atomic value, type xs:positiveInteger,
> text value '5'".
>
> Well, I think it's merit is that it's familiar syntax and semantics
> for anyone who knows XSLT 2.0 or wants to go and read the spec. For
> many purposes, however, a more convenient syntax would be <atomicValue
> value="5" type="xs:positiveInteger"/>.
>
>
> That then leads me to the final question. Suppose we transform this
> serialized form "almost an xslt" format, into "real xslt" format, then
> run a real XSLT 2.0 parser on it. How to get the resulting values out ?
>
> Please bear with me as I'm very much a novice at XSLT ... maybe the
> answer is "obvious".
> XSLT 2.0 claims that the result of an XSLT transformation can be a
> 'set of result trees'.
> Thats an XDM sequence . (???)
>
> No: XQuery can produce any XDM sequence as output (well, almost any -
> it can't for example generate unparsed entities); but XSLT can only
> produce a set of document nodes. You can write an xsl:function to
> produce any XDM sequence as its result, but you would need a
> processor-specific way of invoking the function and capturing its
> result in the external environment.
>
> Incidentally, I was reminded of this project in some work with a
> client yesterday. They are running MarkLogic queries and feeding the
> result into Saxon, currently via lexical XML (it has to be serialized
> because it's on a different machine). In this kind of scenario it
> would be nice to transfer a typed document, but we really don't want a
> five-fold increase in document size over the lexical XML. Size does
> matter.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
> http://twitter.com/michaelhkay
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 14:45:18 UTC