- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:12:51 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote: > Three things motivate me to attempt to solve this problem in V1: > > 1. If you encounter the problem, there's no straightforward workaround. Right. You have to solve it the same way you solve it in XSLT: you generate the pipeline based on the XPath, and then run the pipeline. This would be fiddly but doable if we had a standard run-pipeline step, but we decided against that (for good reasons). As it is, it requires a "manual" (or automatic, just not with XProc) two-stage process. > 2. The real screw case is where you attempt to use a prefix that the > pipeline author used, but with a different binding. In that case > you don't get an error, you just get the wrong result. Languages > shouldn't allow that sort of user error to go undetected. > > 3. I'm an engineer. > > On the other hand, the longer it takes for us to get V1 out, and the > more complicated we make it, the less likely it is to be successful. > So there are pragmatic reasons to say, "not in V1". Yes, I know, and I've said several times that I didn't think there was the will or time to pursue this. But you did keep pushing... Of course, ideally I'd like to fix it, but I'd be more-or-less happy for a v1 that has: (a) a clear story about what *does* get passed into invoked steps by way of namespace bindings and variable/option bindings. (b) a *BIG* warning of the dangers of passing XPaths or QNames around as option values (c) a relatively clear upgrade path to a v2 that provides a fix! And as long as we can start working on a v2 pretty quickly. cheers, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Friday, 8 June 2007 20:12:55 UTC