Re: An unfulfilled requirement maybe?

>/ Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com> was heard to say:
>| Run a program of your own, with some parameters, on an XML file and
display
>| the result in a browser.
>| "
>| And this seems to be something XProc doesn't really allow. You can create
>| your own pipelines, OK. XProc provides means for third party extension
>| steps. OK. But there's no step or anything to allow you to run a program
of
>| your own with some parameters.
>
>Yes, I think you're right. I mostly like your proposal, though I think
>I'd prefer to name the step p:exec and call the option that contains
>the command "command" rather than "line".

I was actually close to proposing p:exec too, but then I remembered you once
saying that the WG decided there should be no abbreviations (the question
back then was something like "why not p:param" or something), and then I
thought the expanded "p:execute" sounds way too general, whereas
"command-line" sounds intuitive enough, not generalized and is not
abbreviated. 

As for saying "command" rather than "line" - OK. Fair enough. I just thought
there would be too much "command"s, but then again, I've made it with too
much "line"s, so what the heck :-D. Name it out as you wish. The only thing
I'd like to see as an author is the same set of options (with possibly
additional ones if the WG feels they are needed).

Oh, and one last thing I forgot when I suggested this. Implementations
should probably be allowed to read additional non standard streams, provided
they mark them in c:other element within the c:result element.

Regards,
Vasil Rangelov

Received on Friday, 28 September 2007 19:28:09 UTC