Re: Directed vs. Generic syntax reprise (Was: Re: Syntax noodling)

Hi Alex,

Alex Milowski wrote:
> I think we need to have a generic way of invoking a component with
> parameters, inputs, and outputs.  Having a directed syntax is an
> import shortcut in that specification.  Maybe we need to have
> a two-fold strategy:
> 
> 1. We always have a generic way to invoke a component as a step:
> 
>    <p:step name="p:xslt">
>       <p:input name="source" ref="..."/>
>       <p:input name="stylesheet" ref="..."/>
>       <p:output name="result"/>
>    </p:step>
> 
> 2. We consider a vocabulary shortcut that can be user-defined for
>    steps as a second step in this process.

I'd like to avoid defining a directed-syntax shorthand in this version
of XProc, because it's more work and because I'm worried about
specifying a language that different users may use completely differently.

I suggest that we put in place the restrictions that make a directed
syntax possible, particularly ensuring that inputs, outputs and 
parameters have to have different names. As you say, it should be a 
fairly straight-fo XSLT transformation from directed to generic syntax, 
so it would be easy to put together a toolset that supports authors 
writing in a directed syntax without us having to specify it now.

Cheers,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com

Received on Friday, 12 May 2006 10:12:01 UTC