- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:11:56 -0500
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
> | What does "atomic step is directly evaluated by the processor" > | actually mean in this context? I am still a bit confused how to > | understand the two sentences. Can you give me an example? > > Sure. Imagine that you have a command line processor that use > "-i port=doc" to identify inputs, "-o port=doc" to identify > outputs, "-ns prefix=uri" to identify command-line namespace > bindings, and "-pipeline qname" to identify the pipeline to run. > > Then I expect the following to run the atomic step "p:xslt" directly: > > xproc -i stylesheet=x.xsl -i source=x.xml -o result=o.xml \ > -ns p=http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc -pipeline p:xslt > > If the declaration for the "p:xslt" atomic step had > serialization or log declarations, I would expect them to be > used in this case. If the p:xslt appeared in a pipeline, they > would not. > > (I'm afraid we still don't have a clear description of how > p:pipeline, p:declare-step, and atomic steps really interact > since we made our syntax changes :-( ) > After reading your e-mail, I noticed a couple of mentions of "direct invocation" in the specification. I just haven't seen it before. I think it's a really nice feature, so perhaps it deserves more emphasis in the specification? Regards, Vojtech -- Vojtech Toman Principal Software Engineer EMC Corporation Aert van Nesstraat 45 3012 CA Rotterdam The Netherlands Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
Received on Monday, 11 February 2008 16:09:32 UTC