- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:08:34 +0000
- To: XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Hi, Murray Maloney wrote: > I was hoping for a lively discussion, but any discussion at all would > do. :-) My thoughts aren't organised, but I thought I should get them down. (1) I like that a nested-element syntax does away with long attribute names like "from-step" and "from-source". (2) I like that a nested-element syntax gives a neat way of specifying the input to a for-each/viewport/choose without having to name a port. (3) I like the fact that nested elements give us an easy way of building a sequence for a port (and even that these sequences might come from different sources). (4) I worry that a nested-element syntax is pretty verbose, but perhaps <p:internal> could be omitted in the default case (where you reference the only output of the previous step). (5) I don't like Murray's names at all. I'd prefer something like <p:ref> instead of <p:internal>; <p:load> for <p:external>; and (like Alex) <p:document> for the "here" document. (6) I'm ambivalent about whether we should have one kind of nested element with three possible sets of attributes, or three different kinds of nested elements. The latter is easier to validate usefully with DTDs and XML Schema. I think that comes out as a vote for a nested-element syntax but with different names to the ones that Murray proposed. While I'm at it, I wanted to support Richard's proposal to change the 'port' attribute on <p:input> and <p:output> to 'name'. I'd vote against changing <p:otherwise> to <p:else> (it might line up better, but it will confuse XSLT users). Cheers, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 14:09:11 UTC