- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 16:32:51 +0100
- To: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Cc: xproc-dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2008/12/7 James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>: >> checkout >> >> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#ex1 >> >> is a good example of p:output getting bound .... the logic especially >> starts making sense in multi branch xproc. > > > > <p:output port="result"> > <p:pipe step="validated" port="result"/> > </p:output> > > > That makes sense (to some extent) > For the overall pipleline, take the output from the result port of the > validated step. > > No problem. > > So, If I understand this... > > p:input wrapper > p:document tells it where to take input from > > p:output wrapper > p:document tells it where to get output from > > Which written like that seems daft IMHO. > > p:output wrapper > p:document tells it where to put output > > is a more logical user view IMHO. > > > In summary, for an atomic step > I can't say, within the pipeline, where to > get input from, and where to put output to? > I have to use defaults+the implementation params? thats not the case, u *can* say from within your pipeline, using for example a p:store step or you can resort to defining output binding uri from a commandline switch to be more verbose and explicit you could use p:load step instead of binding document to a port on your pipeline step. ps: I think you are looking for some sugar here ... which I agree would be useful. hth, Jim Fuller > > > Is that roughly right Jim? > > > regards > > > -- > Dave Pawson > XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. > Docbook FAQ. > http://www.dpawson.co.uk > >
Received on Sunday, 7 December 2008 15:33:26 UTC