- From: Colin Paul Adams <colin@colina.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:55:43 +0000
- To: uri@w3.org
>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> writes: Paul> As a practical note: if one asks one of today's XSLT to read Paul> stdin and output it to stdout, would you rather it Paul> complained: "I've never heard of the posix URI protocol Paul> scheme" or "http://purl.org/posix/stdin returned 404"? The former, of course. But I have another reason for not using the latter - one reason why I have used stdout: for the standard output stream since the inception of the Gestalt XSLT 2.0 processor, is that this scheme, as I have defined it in the output resolver that I wrote for it, has no relative URIs. So a user of gestalt, writing: <xsl:result-document href="destination-one"> ... </xsl:result-document> <xsl:result-document href="destination-two"> ... </xsl:result-document> needs to override the default for the base output URI (which I define to be stdout: for my implementation), as otherwise the above relative URIs will not resolve. This has the advantage of consistency in that the default destination (used if no xsl:result-document is coded) is the same as coding <xsl:result-document href=""> ... I choose to make the default the standard output stream - I could instead have chosen something arbitrary like output.xml relative to the current working directory (i.e. the base output URI would be file:///path-to-current-working-directory/output.xml), but that is not to my taste at all (apart from presupposing that the file: scheme is available, which need not necessarily be the case). Anyway, you can see that for me an http: URI is completely out of the question, as then the above code fragment would yield two relative URIs that resolve (http follows the generic URI syntax) to ... what? Well, I guess answers could be given to this, but none are satisfactory to me. So I will not use an http scheme to refer to stdout. -- Colin Adams Preston Lancashire
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 22:55:54 UTC