- From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:34:41 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 4/13/06, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote: > After some consideration, I think I prefer <p:step name="p:xslt"> to > <p:xslt> and I am confident that I prefer <p:input> and <p:ouput> over > attributes. For one thing, it means that I can do this: > > <p:step name="p:xslt"> > <p:input name="document"> > <doc> > <p>Some data</p> > </doc> > </p:input> > ... Alex/Norm, I have to agree with Norm on the question of syntax being discussed here: 1) The schema for the language would depend on the components provided by a given implementation. This is the case with in Ant, but is otherwise fairly unconventional. 2) Extending the pipeline language becomes harder. Say we want in the future the pipeline author to be able to specify that a given input or output has to be valid according to a schema. We would be unable to just add an attribute "schema" on <p:input> or <p:output>. 3) The syntax imposes unnecessary restrictions: inputs and outputs must have different names, an input cannot be named "input" and an output cannot be named "output". 4) It becomes impossible to know without knowing the interface of the component being used if a attribute corresponds to an input or an output. Alex -- Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source): http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 00:34:50 UTC