RE: a comment on p:declare-step and p:pipeline

The last time that one was raised, the WG decided to keep p:declare-step. I don't remember the exact reason.

But I'm with you on this one. Using p:step seems more natural. I can't imagine if XSLT had xsl:declare-function or xsl:declare-template.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of James Fuller
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 11:26 PM
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Subject: a comment on p:declare-step and p:pipeline


I really like the rationalization that has happened with p:pipeline
and p:declare-step ...

except for one thing, e.g. the 'declare' in declare-step seems
redundant to me, XML mark up is declarative by its very nature, which
means we are declaring a step element ;) This was highlighted for me,
when I went through the May 1st spec today, as all the earlier XProc
examples now use p:declare-step instead of p:pipeline.

so I propose we change

p:declare-step

to

p:step

this reads more naturally to me,

so that the following

<p:declare-step xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc"
                name="xinclude-and-validate">
  <p:input port="source" primary="true"/>
  <p:input port="schemas" sequence="true"/>
  <p:output port="result">
    <p:pipe step="validated" port="result"/>
  </p:output>

  <p:xinclude name="included">
    <p:input port="source">
      <p:pipe step="xinclude-and-validate" port="source"/>
    </p:input>
  </p:xinclude>

</p:declare-step>

would simply be

<p:step xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc"
                name="xinclude-and-validate">
  <p:input port="source" primary="true"/>
  <p:input port="schemas" sequence="true"/>
  <p:output port="result">
    <p:pipe step="validated" port="result"/>
  </p:output>

  <p:xinclude name="included">
    <p:input port="source">
      <p:pipe step="xinclude-and-validate" port="source"/>
    </p:input>
  </p:xinclude>

</p:step>

cmon' ... less letters to type and all that ;)

cheers, Jim Fuller

Received on Thursday, 1 May 2008 21:03:13 UTC