Re: Re: Proposal for subordinate source elements


I think we have two choice at this time

1/ Keeping the model with few elements, but a lot of data models (up to 4
data models for the p:output and p:input element)
2/ Adding Three new elements and having less Polymorphims of elements

I may be wrong but I think what gives more headache to pipeline hand writer,
and also for code completion tools, is especially the first case


On 12/7/06, Alessandro Vernet <> wrote:
> On 12/6/06, Murray Maloney < > wrote:
> > P.S. Any other discussion before tomorrow's call?
> Murray,
> <p:internal step="step1" port="result" />, <p:external href="..." />,
> and <p:here> here document</p:here> do look good: they are consistent
> and readable. However, I have been writing quite a few pipelines over
> the last few years, and I can't help thinking about those who will be
> doing the same in XProc over the next few years. So while I like how
> readable and consistent your proposal is, I am afraid that by adding
> those elements we would be going down the road of XML Schema or WSDL:
> we would be creating a syntax so verbose that those who will have to
> use it will hate it.
> Alex
> --
> Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):

Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 

Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 08:43:47 UTC