- From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:55:42 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 6/8/06, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote:
> <pipe>
> [...]
Alex,
Would it be fair to say that the <pipe> construct is in design
orthogonal to the rest of the language? This is to say that it would
be possible automatically transform a pipeline/flow that uses the
<pipe> construct into a pipeline/flow that does not use the <pipe>
construct.
For instance, using your syntax, your example (I just added here an
output with a primary="true" for symmetry):
<pipe>
<input name="in.document" primary="true"/>
<input name="in.schema"/>
<input name="in.stylesheet"/>
<output name="out.transformed" primary="true"/>
<step name="validate">
<input name="schema" ref="in.document"/>
</step>
<step name="xslt">
<input name="stylesheet" ref="in.stylesheet"/>
</step>
</pipe>
could be written using the full syntax as:
<flow>
<input name="in.document"/>
<input name="in.schema"/>
<input name="in.stylesheet"/>
<output name="out.transformed"/>
<step name="validate">
<input ref="in.document"/>
<input name="schema" ref="in.document"/>
<output label="validated"/>
</step>
<step name="xslt">
<input ref="validated"/>
<input name="stylesheet" ref="in.stylesheet"/>
<output ref="out.transformed"/>
</step>
</flow>
If the <pipe> construct is syntactic sugar that we can add on top of a
full syntax, however useful it is, my take is that should focus our
effort first on a "full" or "non-abbreviated" syntax, before we tackle
the <pipe> construct.
Alex
--
Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):
http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2006 06:55:49 UTC