Re: Comments from the XSLT WG on the XProc Last Call Document

Hi Jeni, this was the intent of the comment the last line of comment #1. 
below.  I hope that clarifies. 

The XProc specification might consider marking atomic steps as 
streamable or not, and thus providing for a streamable XProc subset. 
Streaming-friendly XProc processors would be then able to guarantee that 
pipelines limited to such subset are implemented without building 
representations of whole XML documents in memory.

As far as comment #3 I will ask Nikolay Fiykov <nikolay.fiykov@nsn.com>  
to provide an example.

Thanks.

Sharon

Please send your comments to the XSL List.  I will be on vacation in 
Turkey for the next few weeks and would not want the dialogue to sit 
unanswered.


Sharon C. Adler
 Senior Manager, Extensible Technologies
 IBM Research
 PO Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
 tel:  914-784-6411 t/l 863
 fax: 914-784-6324




Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> 
10/25/2007 04:18 PM
Please respond to
jeni@jenitennison.com


To
Sharon Adler/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc
public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Subject
Re: Comments from the XSLT WG on the XProc Last Call Document






Hi Sharon,

Sharon Adler wrote:
> 1. In using full XPath 1.0 (or 2.0) the XProc specification has some of 
the
> same problems with large documents regarding streaming as we have seen 
with
> with XSLT.  Streaming is an important use case for XML processing in
> general and in specific any pipeline language should make some provision
> for streamability.  We also suggest that you consider adding an
> indication for each step specifying whether the step is streamable or 
not.

Can you clarify whether the XSL WG is suggesting (a) that the 
definitions of the steps defined by XProc (ie in the standard step 
library) include an indication of whether each step is streamable, or 
(b) a facility for authors to indicate whether a particular *invocation* 
of a step is streamable?

> 3. The XProc specification does not make it clear if parallel executions
> are handled. (Currently there is implicit parallelism based on 
connection
> between steps.)  This would be a problem for any task involving multiple
> processing steps on top of streams.

I don't understand this point (probably someone else on the XProc WG 
will, but I'll ask anyway). Can you (or anyone) expand, perhaps with an 
example?

Thanks,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com