- From: James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 20:13:28 +0100
- To: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Cc: XProc Comments <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>, XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Its an interesting thought (FWIW- originally I also was toying with things like mystep#result so its nice to here confirmation from a 2nd pair of eyes). I also like result@mystep ... and from my pov still fits in with the scope of change being discussed. J On 26 November 2014 at 19:59, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> wrote: > On 26 November 2014 at 18:01, Jim Fuller wrote: > > Hi, > >> <p:identity name="mystep"/> >> <p:wrap-sequence .../> >> <p:count from="mystep"/> > >> [...] >> Which is semantically equivalent to the following pipeline. > >> <p:identity name="mystep"/> >> <p:wrap-sequence .../> >> <p:count> >> <p:input port="source"> >> <p:pipe step="mystep" port="result"/> >> </p:input> > > I like the idea. But it is limited to primary ports. What about > something like the following, allowing to give the port as well > (indeed still using the primary port if not explicit): > > <p:count from="result@mystep"/> > > Because both names are NCNames, we could use "mystep:result" as > well, but it would then look too much like a QName, and people would > wonder why "mystep" prefix is not declared. I liked "mystep.result" > but "." is a legitimate character in an NCName. I like "mystep→result" > as well, but I do not think the IT world is ready yet for that in > 2015. > > I think that from="result@mystep" reads quite easy in plain English. > > Regards, > > -- > Florent Georges > http://fgeorges.org/ > http://h2oconsulting.be/
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 19:13:55 UTC