- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 18:02:15 +0200
- To: James Sulak <jsulak@gmail.com>
- Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
2009/4/7 James Sulak wrote:
> This is just an idea; I'm not sure if it's actually a good one.
> In practice, I doubt this problem will happen much, since steps
> generally have a default readable port available. And the
> current approach has the virtue of consistency, even if it is
> more verbose.
I am a bit concerned about that also, but the other way
around :-) I wonder if this is really intuitive to implicitly
bind a step result to a p:with-option. In my humble opinion, it
is intuitive to connect a step's output to the next step's input.
This is less obvious that a step's output is connected to the
following step's with-options that are not explicitly bound to
any port.
I do not mind to add a p:empty (well, if I know I have to :-/)
but I wonder if this is really helpful to implicitly bind
p:with-option to the default readable port, instead of forcing
the user to explicitly bind it if she wants to.
I guess that will give a processor less opportunities to detect
user's errors while this does not really improve readibility or
conciseness. In the following example:
<p:identity name="you">
<p:input port="source">
<p:inline>
<what>you</what>
</p:inline>
</p:input>
</p:identity>
<p:add-attribute match="elem" attribute-name="a">
<p:input port="source">
<p:inline>
<what>world</what>
</p:inline>
</p:input>
<p:with-option name="attribute-value" select="
concat('Hello, ', what, '!')"/>
</p:add-attribute>
I am not sure this is really more readable than:
<p:with-option name="attribute-value" select="
concat('Hello, ', what, '!')">
<p:pipe step="you" port="result"/>
</p:with-option>
and in the later I am sure the user intended to bind the
with-option to the result of the step "you."
Well, just my humble opinion.
Regards,
--
Florent Georges
http://www.fgeorges.org/
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 16:02:57 UTC