- From: James Sulak <jsulak@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 10:06:55 -0600
- To: "James Fuller" <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>, xproc-dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
I agree with Dave that his way seems more logical on its face, but I think I understand why it was done the way it was (somebody who actually knows might want to pitch in). I suppose it's analogous to XSLT, where you can define input and output documents explicitly in your transform by using document() and <xsl:result-document />, but most of the time, you don't, since not doing it makes your transform more portable. If you look at it that way, leaving the job of binding the output of a pipeline to it's caller makes sense. Although I agree, it would be nice to have an easy way to do it within the pipeline. -James On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:32 AM, James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 16:07:34 UTC