- From: James Garriss <james@garriss.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:54:24 -0400
- To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C4FFB0C0.9F7%james@garriss.org>
I understand what a primary input port is. What I don't know is how I know
that p:for-each has only one input. If I look at a step like p:filter, it's
obvious from it's declaration (I'm catching on to the terms!) that it has
only one input port:
<p:declare-step type="p:filter">
<p:input port="source"/>
<p:output port="result" sequence="true"/>
<p:option name="select" required="true"/> <!--
XPathExpression -->
</p:declare-step>
But p:for-each doesn't seem to have a declaration. It looks sorta like
BNF/parser-token-stuff to me. So what tells me that p:for-each has only one
input?
<p:for-each
name? = NCName>
((p:iteration-source? &
(p:output |
p:log)*),
subpipeline)
</p:for-each>
James Garriss
http://garriss.blogspot.com
From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:45:22 -0400
To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Subject: Re: compound steps and primary inputs
Resent-From: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:46:27 +0000
James Garriss <james@garriss.org> writes:
> Do all compound steps have primary inputs? I ask because I can't tell by
> reading the WD if p:for-each has a primary input or not. I'm probably
> missing a key word somewhere.
The p:for-each step has only one input and the rules say
[Definition: If a step has a document input port which is explicitly
marked ³primary='true'², or if it has exactly one document input
port and that port is not explicitly marked ³primary='false'², then
that input port is the primary input port of the step.]
By the second clause, the input port of p:for-each is primary.
> When I use it in Calabash 0.6.1, it behaves as if it does:
>
> <p:declare-step xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc">
> <p:input port="source">
> <p:document href="BookStore.xml"/>
> </p:input>
> <p:output port="result"/>
> <p:filter select="/BookStore/Book[Date>'1970']"/>
> <p:for-each>
> <p:output port="result"/>
> <p:identity/>
> </p:for-each>
> </p:declare-step>
>
> The output of filter, a sequence of documents (<Book>...</Book>), is being
> inputted (is that a word?) into p:for-each.
That's right. And that's what you want, isn't it?
> Appreciate any insights!
1. You only need to use p:filter if some part of the expression you want
to test against is computed by the pipeline.
2. A p:for-each that contains only an identity step is a little, uh,
redundant.
I believe that you could simplify the pipeline above to just this:
<p:declare-step xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc">
<p:input port="source">
<p:document href="BookStore.xml"/>
</p:input>
<p:output port="result"/>
<p:identity select="/BookStore/Book[Date>'1970']"/>
</p:declare-step>
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If we lived alone in a featureless
http://nwalsh.com/ | desert we should learn to place the
| individual grains of sand in a moral or
| aesthetic hierarchy.--Michael Frayn
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 12:55:16 UTC