Re: Naming

Norm Walsh wrote:
> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
> [...]
> | <step kind="select" name="chapters">
> |   <pipe from="validated!result" to="documents" />
> |   <param name="xpath" value="//chap" />
> | </step>
> 
> I think this is definitely worth exploring. The one thing that bothers
> me a little bit is that I think it encourages the reader to think of
> pipes and steps somewhat separately. The following markup, for
> example, is technically sufficient.
> 
>  <pipe from="validated!result" to="chapters!documents" />
> 
>  <step kind="select" name="chapters">
>    <param name="xpath" value="//chap" />
>  </step>
> 
> But I don't think it's a very friendly.
> 
> On that basis, I think I prefer a model where one end of the pipe is
> somehow more permanently affixed.

The main point of my suggestion was the nesting of some element within a 
port declaration in order to provide the binding for the port. I'm quite 
happy to change the name to something that gives less encouragement to 
the reader to think of pipes and steps separately.

One other possibility I thought of was <put>: something like

<step kind="xslt" name="transform">
   <put in="source" source="validated!result" />
   <put in="stylesheet" load="style.xsl" />
</step>

and

<group name="...">
   <input name="document">
     <put source="previous-step!result" />
   </input>
   <output name="result">
     <put source="inner-step!result" />
   </output>
   ...
</group>

Cheers,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com

Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2006 12:50:27 UTC