- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:02:35 -0500
- To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <m2k5aer7g4.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"David A. Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> writes: >>I'm tempted to do a little bit of this myself. Just recognizing the >> expressions ^\$[A-Za-z_][A-Za-z0-9_]$, ^\'.*\'$, and ^\".*\"$ would >> probably cover 80% of the cases. (It wouldn't obviate the user from >> oviding the explicit binding, however.) > > I thought about this for a while last week ... having the parser do > static analysis on the xpath. > Regex's wont hack it. Regexes won't catch all the possible static values, but any expression that matches the regexes I gave above is static. And I think that'd cover most of the cases in practice. > And this one sticky point could be what makes it impossible (or so > extremely difficult that it wont ever be done) to have xproc ever work > in a streaming mode in the majority of cases. I don't follow. How does splitting an input break streaming? The splitter can stream, the downstream processes can stream, it's all good. Just start a thread for each component and off you go... > the future say someone came up with a streaming XPath library where > you could feed it say StAX events and out would come more StaX events My XPath 1.0 based implementation used StAX and did stream a few components in some of the simple cases. I'm pretty sure it streamed the splits too. > In Conclusion > > I'd like to cast a "Formal Vote" if there is such a thing, that the > default case be reversed. Send a summary to the XProc comments list, please: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/ You don't have to repeat the whole thread, if you point to it in the archives: Starting in November at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2008Nov/0055.html continuing in December at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xproc-dev/2008Dec/0011.html Note that you formally object to this aspect of the spec (technically, you should have raised the objection during Last Call, but we don't need to stand on ceremony.) > And that if no binding is given for with-option then the <empty/> > binding is implied. Not doing so, in my opinion, will have a dramatic > negative effect on the real world usefulness of this spec and places a > severe, unnecessary, cap on possible efficiency of implementations > (without extraordinary efforts) for very limited potential benefit in > syntax to users. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | To what excesses will men not go for http://nwalsh.com/ | the sake of a religion in which they | believe so little and which they | practice so imperfectly!--La Bruyère
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 15:03:17 UTC