W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > January 2012

RE: calling for xproc pain points, requested features, etc

From: Philip Fennell <Philip.Fennell@marklogic.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 08:32:12 -0800
To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D20C296D14127D4EBD176AD949D8A75A20556ADE80@EXCHG-BE.marklogic.com>
Perhaps rather than suggest names, I should describe the use cases for referencing specific pipeline/step-declarations that shouldn't need naming explicitly because their context in relation to the 'current' step is clear by way of element ancestry:

1) I want a token to refer to the step-declaration that 'contains' the 'current' step so I can access its inputs.

2) I want a token to refer to the outer most (root) pipeline/step-declaration so I can access its inputs.

There may be situations where (1) and (2) are the same thing but I think in that instance the either token would be acceptable.


Regards

Philip

-----Original Message-----
From: Geert Josten [mailto:geert.josten@dayon.nl] 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 3:09 PM
To: Philip Fennell; James Fuller; XProc Dev
Subject: RE: calling for xproc pain points, requested features, etc

Nice idea! #current doesn't make much sense, but perhaps something like
#previous would?

Kind regards,
Geert

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Philip Fennell [mailto:Philip.Fennell@marklogic.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 5 januari 2012 15:58
Aan: James Fuller; XProc Dev
Onderwerp: RE: calling for xproc pain points, requested features, etc

My favourite gripe is that you have to explicitly name a step in order to
refer to any of its inputs from a p:pipe instruction within that step.

Would it be possible to have the concept of #current or #parent as the
reference to the step declaration you are in. This would be similar to
XSLT 2's #current mode.

I think it would go something like this:


	<p:declare-step type="some:step">
		<p:input port="source" primary="true"/>
		<p:input port="other" primary="false"/>
		<p:output port="result"/>
		
		<p:add-attribute match="c:request" attribute-name="href">
			<p:with-option name="attribute-value"
select="/html:link/@href">
				<p:pipe port="other" step="#parent"/>
			</p:with-option>
		</p:add-attribute>
	</p:declare-step>


Probably #current is not a good name because in the above example the
'current' step is p:add-attribute but its 'parent' step is the some:step
declaration.


Regards

Philip



-----Original Message-----
From: James Fuller [mailto:james.fuller.2007@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:22 PM
To: XProc Dev
Subject: calling for xproc pain points, requested features, etc

As we review where we go from here with xproc.vnext can I ask people
on this list to comment on;

* highlight their top 4-5 pain points using XProc from a usability
perspective. We have captured some of these here;

     http://www.w3.org/wiki/Usability

* expand on what you think maybe useful for xproc.vnext, once again we
have captured some of this here

    http://www.w3.org/wiki/XprocVnext

* comment on expectations for timelines on an xproc.vnext as well as
highlighting key priorities e.g. is this is a short 'fix whats broke'
or something more 'revolutionary' ?

appreciate everyone taking time and effort on this.

Jim Fuller
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:39:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 January 2012 16:39:38 GMT