Re: Alternative to x!y

I agree on the semantic of "->" and of the "markup" response ;-) I 
really like a lightweight syntax, but I don't like inventing one.

-Erik

Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> I _really_ don't want to use ->, it's just semantically wrong (the
> step doesn't _produce_ or _yield_ the port, the step scopes the port),
> as well as somehow crossing some microparsing boundary I don't want to
> cross.
> 
> I'm not unhappy with !, but if people aren't, what about using . and
> requiring no . in step or port names?
> 
> Or, if I can suppress my microparsing concerns, what about x[y] ?
> 
> But, the longer this goes on, the harder I find it to repress my
> "Having trouble designing a micro-syntax?  XML has the answer, it's
> called _markup_!" reflex response in this sort of situation.   So why
> not
>  <p:input port="document">
>   <pipe step="x" port="y"/>
>  </p:input>
> 
> possibly shortened to
>  <p:input port="document" source="x" sourcePort="y"/>
> 
> ht
> - -- 
>  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
>                      Half-time member of W3C Team
>     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
>             Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>                    URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
> [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFE7HOBkjnJixAXWBoRAqFqAJ9Ei4WPwMsKHq9K2QrDC6O2xbds/QCfVMVe
> bRka5WKEws/Ww9gP5cd8XzY=
> =62op
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 


-- 
Orbeon - XForms Everywhere:
http://www.orbeon.com/blog/

Received on Wednesday, 23 August 2006 15:39:18 UTC