Re: !result in components

/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| So when I look again to p:count, p:store and p:xsl-formatter, I see a
| different semantic for port !result
|
| Everywhere, the port !result is related to the input (say it has a
| content which is the input more or less deltas)
| except p:count, p:store and p:xsl-formatter

Personally, I'm not bothered by the current semantics.

| I'm proposing two things :
|
| 1) state the fact that we use !result in a consistent manner through
| the XProc spec

I don't find the current use of the result port "inconsistent".

For that matter, what would constitute consistent? If I pass a DocBook
document to an XSLT step and I get an HTML document out, how is that
consistent?

| 2) change the signature of p:count and p:store
| 2.a) change the port named !result by another name and keep result if necessary

I could live with this, though I don't feel it's necessary.

| 2.b) OR introduce a new semantic, p:export-option, that simply makes available
|  to the subsequent step the value of an option
|  <p:count/>
|  <!-- here $count has been exported as the value of count and !result
| reexport the input -->

This would require the invention of some entirely new mechanism and
I'm strongly opposed.

| I would also argue that p:tee would be no more needed if !result of
| p:store would make available the input

I already concede that we don't need p:tee.

But having the result of p:store be the same as its input seems
unnecessary. If you wanted the input, you could just read it from
wherever store reads it.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A man's dying is more the survivors'
http://nwalsh.com/            | affair than his own.--Thomas Mann