- From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:22:32 +1100 (EST)
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
I think the new draft is an improvement, especially I prefer the simpler names. I think using the attribute name "port" is confusing: it adds an extra concept where none is needed. Why not just call it "name", i.e. the name of the input? That inputs and outputs and parameters are ports is a distinction without a function: everyone knows what an input and an output is already but people have to scratch their heads over ports; even scheme people cannot be sure it maps to the scheme concept. One possible suggestion: I wonder whether it would better to allow inputs to be either small arrays or streams, or ZIP files containing related multiple XML documents, as well as raw XML documents. I think our current way of doing things, where for example we make a catalog a parameter of a process rather than a parameter of an input, is wrong. In other words, instead of simple XML pipelines, have Compound XML Pipelines. Now in one sense this is already unnecessary: if all the information is passed as a URL then the URL could just as easily be inside a ZIP as on a disk. However, XProc doesn't pass by reference by (anonymous) value AFAIKS. As Norm would be painfully aware, a lot of the pain of processing XML comes from the fact that XML documents are frequently parts of larger collections: images, and so on. Not to mention the ODF and Open Packaging Formats, which use ZIP. Furthermore, most of the PSVI has no simple XML representation: either it must be handled internally to a process (i.e. it is no use having a separate process for validation) or it must be passed as a separate document. What do I mean by small arrays or streams? Well, define an input as a stream like this: <input name="instance"> <document name="schema" href="aaa.xsd"/> <document name="catalog" /> <document name="instance" /> </input> <input name="stylesheet" href="xxx.xsl" /> <output name="result"> <document name="schema" href="bbb.xsd" /> <document name="catalog" /> <document name="result" > </output> The availability of such arrays frees up the parameter inputs to be only used for the parameters of the process. Also, it provides a natural home for XBase and other contextual information: this can allow XML to develop without requiring the XProc spec to be upgraded. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Monday, 20 November 2006 01:27:41 UTC