Re: XProc Minutes 27 Sep 2007

/ Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk> was heard to say:
|>   pipeline library
|> 
|>    ->
|>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007S=
|> ep/0143.html
|> 
|>    Norm: So the question is, if you hand a pipeline *library* to a processor
|>    should it run a particular pipeline.
|>    ... Seems to me that the implementation should take an option to specify
|>    which library
|
| Should this say "which pipeline"?

Yes.

[...]
| But all this seems to be encroaching on the user interface.  I think
| we should just require that implementations
|
| (a) provide a way to run the pipeline in a p:pipeline file
| (b) provide a way to run a named pipeline after loading one or more
|     libraries.

Right. I don't think that's in dispute. I can certainly imagine having
a "pipeline" option on my processor so that:

  $ xproc -pipeline procspec mylibrary.xml

Runs the pipeline named "procspec" in the pipeline-library in
mylibrary.xml. The idea we were discussing was whether or not there
should be syntax in the spec so that given

  $ xproc mylibrary.xml

the processor will automatically choose to run the pipeline named
"procspec" (because the p:pipeline-library in mylibrary.xml nominates
it as the default pipeline).

Consensus was "no", but Murray observed that neither you nor Henry were
present and wondered what you'd think.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Throughout history the world has been
http://nwalsh.com/            | laid waste to ensure the triumph of
                              | conceptions that are now as dead as the
                              | men that died for them.--Henry De
                              | Montherlant