- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 17:32:15 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29472 --- Comment #8 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- We dug a very deep hole for ourselves when discussing this, and I'm really not sure why. I really think there is a very strong case for having an instruction that does exactly the same thing as xsl:stream except for the streaming. In the particular example I've been addressing today, I want to compare the performance characteristics of a streaming implementation with a non-streaming implementation (and at the same time check that the results are the same), before deciding which to use. In due course, I might decide that I want the stylesheet to be able to operate either way. With other constructs in the language, I can switch between streaming and non-streaming versions of my code by setting streamable=yes|no, for example on xsl:mode and xsl:merge-source. I really can't see why there is resistance to allowing the same thing here. Sure, it's difficult to define the precise semantics, but that applies to the streaming machinery in its entirety. Sure, I could have a command-line flag that says "implement xsl:stream without streaming". But setting options from the outside environment can be very inconvenient, and can be too coarse-grained (it applies to all xsl:stream instructions, not just one). For the time being I've implemented an extension attribute to achieve this. But I really think it should be a standard option, as it is elsewhere. If the xsl:stream instruction had been named xsl:process-document, and had been in the language before we started work on streaming, then I don't think we would have had any hesitation in adding a streamable="yes|no" attribute to the instruction. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 1 July 2016 17:32:38 UTC