Re: Syntax noodling

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| A couple of quick queries before I get onto the meaty issues.
|
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|> Imagine that the following configuration is known to the engine:
| [snip]
|> <p:component name="p:load">
|>   <p:input name="stdin"/>
|>   <p:output name="stdout"/>
|> </p:component>
|
| Did you mean that to be:
|
| <p:component name="p:load">
|   <p:param name="href" />
|   <p:output name="stdout" />
| </p:component>
|
| Otherwise it seems to just be an identity component?

I'm not sure. :-)

Having an href parameter would work, but I also think that it's going
to be advantageous to make

  <p:input href="someURI"/>

work as the syntax for allowing any component's input to come from a
URI. That means that the p:load component is just a synonym for
p:identity but that's OK, I think.

| Also, I'd prefer something like 'input' and 'output' as the default
| input/output names rather than 'stdin' and 'stdout': it's a small thing,
| but the latter simply look as though you need more technical know-how to
| understand them, and it would be nice if we could avoid putting off
| people who don't have that background.

I agree completely. On the telcons, we've been refering to them as
stdin and stdout because (a) many of us have a *nix background and (b)
it does avoid phrases like "I think the input input should..." ;-)

When it comes time to give them real names, I think "input" and "output"
are a lot more friendly.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.