Re: !result in components

On 5/26/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / 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?

It is consistent because it is the same content in another form (or format)

>
> | 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.

It is not really new
It is strictly equivalent as today's

<p:count name="count"/>
<p:option name="$count" select="@value">
  <p:pipe step="count" port="result" />
</p:option>

and it has the advantage of pushing simple types data into options
instead of XML files

>
> | 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.

Great

>
> But having the result of p:store be the same as its input seems
> unnecessary.

That's not mandatory in my proposal. I could leave with p:store having
NO output at all

> If you wanted the input, you could just read it from
> wherever store reads it.

Fine by me

Mohamed
-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €

Received on Sunday, 27 May 2007 14:47:07 UTC