W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > October 2011

Re: XProc Usability (was Re: New to Xproc Question : conditionnal "output port" definition?)

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:15:36 -0400
To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m2k48adyw7.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Geert Josten <geert.josten@daidalos.nl> writes:
> It would already help a lot if the specs could be tuned such that you
> can rely more on default behavior, or could write things with less
> characters:
> - You would not need the p:with-option stuff if attribute value templates were supported from the start.

Yes, we should have done AVTs.

> - Things like generating empty input taking up 5 lines (p:identity
> with p:input with p:empty inside), can't that be done shorter?

When do you need this? Can you show me a small example?

> - Maybe something specific to XMLCalabash, but why can't I just do
> p:variable with a p:pipe connecting to parameters port? It complains
> about context, forcing me to pipe the parameters through a
> p:parameters first, and rerouting input around the p:parameters as
> well.

Uhm. Can you show me an example of the problem?

> - Lot's of extensions don't produce output, but do take input without
> doing much with that (most notably the file io extensions for
> example). Why not just let them do identity transform as well, making
> it much easier to do a large sequence of such steps..

That's an intersting idea. The exproc.org steps are community driven.
If we decide they should do the identity transform, we can do that.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 413 624 6676
www.marklogic.com

Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 15:16:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 October 2011 15:16:14 GMT