Re: An unfulfilled requirement maybe?

On 9/30/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> | 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.
>
> Ok, we can leave picking the names until later :-)
>
> | 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.
>
> I prototyped a slightly different model:
>
> <p:declare-step type="px:exec">
>  <p:input port="stdin"/>
>  <p:output port="stdout" primary="true"/>
>  <p:output port="stderr"/>
>  <p:option name="command" required="true"/>
>  <p:option name="args"/>
>  <p:option name="wrap-stdout-lines" value="false"/>
>  <p:option name="wrap-stderr-lines" value="false"/>
> </p:declare-step>
>
> It seems to work pretty well, naming aside.
>
> I'm tempted to suggest a "stdout-is-xml" option that treats stdout as
> XML and returns a document. But maybe it's ok to just require the
> unescape-markup step. You could always write your own pipeline to do
> that.


I may have missed something :

Isn't your stdout-is-xml = true equivalent to wrap-stdout-lines = false ?

Since you don't wrap it, it just must be XML per XProc spec, isn'it ?

Xmlizer

Received on Sunday, 30 September 2007 07:46:34 UTC