- From: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 20:55:38 +0200
- To: Florent Georges <fgeorges@gmail.com>
- Cc: James Sulak <jsulak@gmail.com>, XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Florent Georges <fgeorges@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I agree with your analysis, but you miss one important point in it : you may end up having to give a name to a bunch of component for that, which might become troublesome at some point I agree with James S. : it is consistant but not ideal It reminds me the double quoting problem of strings in XPath/XSLT Xmlizer
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 18:56:18 UTC