- 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