- From: James Sulak <jsulak@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:35:56 -0600
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: "XProc Dev" <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Thanks, Norm, that makes sense. I'm finding that the difference between atomic steps and compound steps is one of the more confusing bits of the spec. -James On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:04 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > "James Sulak" <jsulak@gmail.com> writes: > >>>From 5.8.1: >> >> "When declaring an atomic step, the subpipeline in the declaration >> must be empty. And, conversely, if the subpipeline in a declaration is >> empty, the declaration must be for an atomic step." >> >> Does this mean that this: >> >> <p:pipeline name="new-identity"> >> <p:identity /> >> </p:pipeline> >> >> is technically declaring a compound step, and not an atomic step? > > Yes. It's a compound step with a single step in its subpipline. > >> And >> if so, is it impossible to declare an atomic step that's not an >> extension implemented at the processor level (if that makes sense)? > > Yes and no. > > Users can declare new compound steps, expressed in terms of a > subpipeline of other steps. Users can then use these compound steps as > atomic steps in other pipelines. > > Users can declare new atomic steps, here's one: > > <p:declare-step type="ex:foo" xmlns:ex="..."> > <p:input port="source"/> > <p:input port="secondary"/> > <p:output port="result"/> > <p:option name="use-dwim" required="true"/> > <p:option anem="read-users-mind" select="'false'"/> > </p:declare-step> > > But they won't work unless the processor knows how to run them. How, > or if, you can tell a processor to run them is implementation > dependent. (In calabash, you put something like this in a configuration > file: > > <implementation type="ex:foo" xmlns:ex="..." > class-name="com.skynet.library.Foo"/> > > where the named class implements the right interface.) > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If you don't have the time to do it > http://nwalsh.com/ | right, where are you going to find the > | time to do it over? >
Received on Monday, 15 December 2008 03:36:38 UTC