Re: Poll: New (or old) name for p:declare-step

We have a frontrunner, and it is the old name, p:declare-step.

I’ll keep the poll (http://doodle.com/poll/zicuz2tps5ax246f) open until 
18:00 UTC today.

On 17.09.2017 14:02, Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex wrote:
> At this week’s XProc Next Community Group [1] meeting [2] in Aachen, 
> Gioele Barabucci proposed some changes to p:pipeline [3] that would make 
> it a bit more versatile and avoid or delay the switch to p:preclare-step 
> proper that many pipeline authors have experienced as inevitable after 
> some evolutionary “steps” of their pipelines.
> 
> There was quick consensus that the p:pipeline shortcut, contrary to what 
> the WG assumed when they wrote the XProc 1.0 spec, has note been used 
> very frequently, and that the existence of this shortcut made teaching 
> XProc a bit harder than if it were not present at all.
> 
> So we agreed on removing p:pipeline in 3.0.
> 
> Some argued in favor of keeping both names as synonyms for 
> p:declare-step, like xsl:stylesheet and xsl:transform in XSLT. The group 
> could not agree on that, again for teachability reasons.
> 
> But some reasons were brought up why renaming p:declare-step could be 
> beneficial. For example, when p:declare-step has no @type attribute, it 
> declares a pipeline that cannot be used as a step in another pipeline, 
> therefore p:declare-pipeline might be adequate. One argument against 
> this was that if you want to turn a declared pipeline into a step by 
> adding a type attribute, you shouldn’t need to rename the whole thing. 
> Consequently, some suggested to have p:declare-pipeline and 
> p:declare-step as synonyms. Others wanted to make it concise by renaming 
> it p:step (or p:pipeline). Some replied that we had just removed 
> declaration and usage ambiguity for p:input/p:with-input [4] and that we 
> should explicitly state that we are declaring a step rather than using 
> it. Still others weighed in that in case of p:input, p:output, and 
> p:option, there is no 'declare-' in it, either, stating that there can 
> be no confusion between a step’s declaration and a step’s invocation 
> because a step is invoked by an element whose name is the declaration’s 
> @type attribute anyway, rather than by a ficticious p:invoke-step or, 
> gasp, p:with-step element.
> 
> In the end, there were good arguments for renaming it p:declare-pipeline 
> and also good arguments for keeping p:declare-step, but the overall 
> inclination seemed to be that we should know this element by just one 
> name all the time.
> 
> Maybe the broader XProc community has some new proposals, arguments, 
> thoughts on this? If you just want to support one of the existing 
> proposals, you can participate in this doodle poll: 
> http://doodle.com/poll/zicuz2tps5ax246f
> Add your comments by replying to this message or by adding a comment to 
> the poll and/or the Github issue [3].
> 
> Gerrit
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/xproc-next/
> [2] https://github.com/xproc/Workshop-2017-09/wiki/Agenda-and-Minutes
> [3] https://github.com/xproc/3.0-specification/issues/136
> [4] https://github.com/xproc/3.0-specification/issues/106
> 

-- 
Gerrit Imsieke
Geschäftsführer / Managing Director
le-tex publishing services GmbH
Weissenfelser Str. 84, 04229 Leipzig, Germany
Phone +49 341 355356 110, Fax +49 341 355356 510
gerrit.imsieke@le-tex.de, http://www.le-tex.de

Registergericht / Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Leipzig
Registernummer / Registration Number: HRB 24930

Geschäftsführer: Gerrit Imsieke, Svea Jelonek,
Thomas Schmidt, Dr. Reinhard Vöckler
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meet us at Frankfurt Book Fair
Hall 4.2, L 72.

More at https://www.le-tex.de/en/buchmesse.html

Received on Monday, 18 September 2017 08:52:31 UTC