- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:54:31 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Alex Milowski wrote: >> We define the inputs and outputs of pipelines, groups and so on using >> a combination of these elements, by nesting the binding element <pipe> >> within the port definition <input> and <output>. You don't have to use >> a 'to' attribute: the pipe goes to the port that the <pipe> appears in. > > I really like this idea. This also gives us a way to use > "here" documents to specify static outputs. > > The use case for static outputs is where you have many different > pipelines that need to have the same input/output signature but > specific pipelines don't need to produce all outputs. If you > have "here" documents for outputs, you can place some kind of > "NOP" XML into that output: > > <pipeline name="ex1"> > ... > <output name="result"> > <mydoc>...</mydoc> > </output> > </pipeline> I'd actually intended 'here' documents to be nested inside the <pipe>. In a <step>, they have to be, in order to indicate which port the 'here' document is associated with: <step kind="xslt" name="transform"> <pipe to="source" from="validated!result" /> <pipe to="stylesheet"> <xsl:stylesheet ...>...</xsl:stylesheet> </pipe> </step> and I think it would be best to avoid having <pipe> work differently within <step>s from how it does within <input>/<output>. So I'd suggest we do 'here' documents for outputs with: <pipeline name="ex1"> ... <output name="result"> <pipe> <mydoc xmlns="">...</mydoc> </pipe> </output> </pipeline> (I'm all in favour of 'here' documents for outputs: I think it's essential for <choose>.) Cheers, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2006 12:54:44 UTC