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

RE: why not in p:exec ... ""If cwd is not specified, the cwd is the same as the xproc file one is running."?

From: David Lee <dlee@calldei.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:50:48 -0500
To: "'Alex Muir'" <alex.g.muir@gmail.com>, "'Norman Walsh'" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: "'XProc Dev'" <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00ae01ccd5d7$6cd58800$46809800$@calldei.com>
Location and PWD are different.

Simple case, suppose the xproc "file" was served via a URL 

                http://www.mine.com/xproc.xml

 

Then you can do a URI resolution to find an associated xslt file

http://www.mine.com/xslt.xsl

 

But "http://www.mine.com" cant serve as a CWD.

 

Similar cases for OS's without CWD's but with filenames.

 

In cases where the xproc file was made in memory then it would have been up
to the environment to supply the 'base URI' which may or may not be a
"directory" in a 'filesystem'.

 

exec CWD's and URI's are different.

 

You can see a rant on a similar problem in xmlsh

 

http://blog.xmlsh.org/2009/01/uri-for-cwd.html

 

 

 

 

----------------------------------------

David A. Lee

dlee@calldei.com

http://www.xmlsh.org

 

From: Alex Muir [mailto:alex.g.muir@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:36 AM
To: Norman Walsh
Cc: XProc Dev
Subject: Re: why not in p:exec ... ""If cwd is not specified, the cwd is the
same as the xproc file one is running."?

 

Thanks for the simpler way and the explanation, although other steps seem to
rely on a concept of cwd being the directory the xproc file is in for
example xslt files are referenced as relative to the location of the xproc
file so I'm not clear on the reasons p:exec would differ from those and a
bit interested to know why as I assume there is a reason.

Regards


On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Geert Josten <geert.josten@dayon.nl> wrote:

 

An expression like: resolve-uri('./', $lib-base-uri) gives you the directory
with an ending slash.

 

But David makes sensible remarks. It could well be that even this approach
does not return a useful uri..

 

-- 

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:

David Lee <dlee@calldei.com> writes:
> Not speaking for the WG ... but  it won't keep me from speaking :)

You know, you work for a member company now, ...


> 1) The XProc "file" may not be a file, it could be
>
> A) In a database (such as EMC  ...)
>
> B) Prepared dynamically
>
> D) Directly fetched/executed off the internet (http:// ... )
>
> 2) Not all OS's *HAVE* the notion of a CWD.   For example Windows Mobile
has no concept of a
> CWD.

Yes, those are the sorts of reasons that the WG didn't attempt to specify
the CWD.

                                       Be seeing you,
                                         norm

--
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 413 624 6676 <tel:%2B1%20413%20624%206676> 
www.marklogic.com




-- 

Alex Muir
Instructor | Program Organizer - University Technology Student Work
Experience Building
University of the Gambia 
http://sites.utg.edu.gm/alex/
<https://sites.google.com/a/utg.edu.gm/utsweb/> 

Low budget software development benefiting development in the Gambia, West
Africa
Experience of a lifetime, come to Gambia and Join UTSWEB -
http://sites.utg.edu.gm/utsweb/
<https://sites.google.com/a/utg.edu.gm/utsweb/> 
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 11:51:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 January 2012 11:51:19 GMT