- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:21:15 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 8/1/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: > | On 8/1/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > |> / "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: > |> | and the result is > |> | > |> | <wrapper><doc><a/></doc><doc><A/></doc><alpha/></wrapper> > |> | <wrapper><doc><b/></doc><doc><B/></doc><beta/></wrapper> > |> | <wrapper><doc><c/></doc><doc><C/></doc><gamma/></wrapper> > |> > |> Ah, ok. > |> > |> |> And what's the value again? > |> | > |> | being able to give it to a for-each to simulate a p:equal-sequence > |> > |> And why not just iterate over the first sequence, using the > |> p:iteration-count to exract the right element out of the other > |> sequence? > | > | It is not efficient at all !! > > I never said it was. > > |> Is this really a common use case? > | > | Well, equal-sequence is the most obvious one > > Do you know of any actual use cases where you need to compare two > sequences of documents? > > For comparing two sequences of documents, you could simply wrap each > sequence in a "wrapper" and compare the two "wrapper" documents. Good point, but I need to point which one is different, and I won't be able to do it your way Furthermore it will fail if the the first is different and never tells me the rest are identical > > | The other one is when you have two flows of left pages and right pages > | and what to merge them > > Do you know of any XML process that produces independent sequences of > left and right pages? Yep, bilingual books I must admit that there is some syncho between both but for fast snapshot you use some rough approximation (The weird part are the foot notes) > > | More generally when you need to manipulate multiple flows you will use > | something like this > > Indeed. I just don't know of any processes that produce such flows. > I'm not saying that it couldn't be done, I just wonder if it's common > enough to justify a standard specialty component. In fact, this component would be perfectly symetric to how <p:input port="source"> <p:pipe port="seq1"/> <p:pipe port="seq2"/> <p:pipe port="seq3"/> </p:input> will work, but instead of consuming, the full seq1 first, then the full seq2, you will be able to consume them in parallel Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 17:21:43 UTC