- From: Jim Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:01:14 +0100
- To: XProc Comments <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>,XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
-- Todays WG meeting discussed the vagaries of explicitly defining port connections. A number of proposals was floated to try and make life easier for the author. I thought I would send through some informal emails to give an initial airing of each of the ideas percolating. One syntax proposal which struck a chord with the WG, was an idea proposed by Henry S. Thompson, to make it much easier (in the general use case) to define connection flow. The idea is a new 'from' attribte would be defined on a step. <p:pipeline> <p:identity name="mystep"/> <p:wrap-sequence .../> <p:count from="mystep"/> </p:pipeline> In this example, the 'from' attribute defines a connection from 'mystep' default readable port (eg. primary output port of the p:identity 'mystep') to the p:count primary input port. Which is semantically equivalent to the following pipeline. <p:pipeline> <p:identity name="mystep"/> <p:wrap-sequence .../> <p:count> <p:input port="source"> <p:pipe step="mystep" port="result"/> </p:input> </p:pipeline> While this simplification does not provide a broad range of new behaviour its a concise start towards making the general use case easier and leverages existing port machinery already in place. Obviously, there are still details to work out for the concrete proposal. I am sure there are lots of room for variation and we want to hear your comments; though I am personally keen to avoid ratholing on syntax, that is simplicity of use and alignment with current vnext will trump over complexity or breadth of new behavior. thx, Jim Fuller ps- big thanks to Romain Deltour, his original email[1] which helped motivate action on this [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2014Feb/0001.html
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 17:01:41 UTC