- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:28:34 +0200
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Hello, I had a chance to go through the latest XProc draft and wanted to scratch out some thoughts here. * should be consistent when indicating when a step takes multiple inputs an/or multiple sequences...e.g. p:join-sequences uses <p:input port="*" sequence="yes"/> and p:subsequence does something else...multiple input elements should be represented as well. * might be worth outlineing how p:join-sequences will aggregate (e.g. are documents serially aggregated or actually merged together) * p:subsequence should be clarified: e.g. does an entire document get aggregated to output when test is true. * maybe useful to have http separated out e.g. http-get as required * any thoughts on relation of xpointer with Xproc (e.g. wherever there is a select attribute)? * circular references with p:pipe needs clarification * need to clarify sequences of documents usage for p:inline * verbatim copy for p:identity needs to be a bit clarified. * should there be default input and output names for default input and output ports? * p:xslt: should there be some namespace binding to define which XSLT processor to use....also if so should there should be a p:option to determine any processor specific switches. Can think of this type of thing cropping up with xml parser and various other steps that do work (and their exists multiple processors) * thoughts on an optional p:tidy or p:tag-soup? * xsl:for-each adds a bit of complexity, might be useful to place this as an optional step? * I am not sure about p:try p:catch, try/catch has never felt right with these kind of approaches.....once again possible optional step will have more thoughts later on in the week; with more pickier (spelling, language, etc) items cheers, James Fuller
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 00:56:35 UTC