- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 08:10:18 -0400
- To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <m21vqc83px.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes: > Great work! > >> Q: Should "file" be made absolute wrt to the current base URI, or left >> unchanged (effectively making it relative to the implementations >> notion of current working directory)? > > I would say the former (make absolute against the current base URI) > since it would be more consistent with how the core XProc steps behave. > For instance, the p:load and p:store steps, or the p:document construct > use the current base URI. (On the other hand, I am well aware of the > problems with getting the current working directory in XProc...) I think you're probably right. My hesitation stems from the fact that these are not operations on URIs, they're operations on files. > Just one thought: what about making these steps more generic, and make > the use an "href" option instead of "file"? That would allow > implementations to support also other URI schemes than "file". If we make them absolute wrt the base URI, then I definitely think they should have an 'href' option not a 'file' option. Delete is the only "action" step that I think makes any sense for URI schemes other than file, but I guess all the info ones make sense. > For instance, in our implementation we support a whole bunch of URI > schemes, and support for additional URI schemes can be easily providedby > the user/programmer. I can imagine that one may want to use the > fileutils steps to access the classpath, for instance, or even > collections/documents in a native XML database, ... In our > implementation, all you have to do is to pass a different URI scheme to > the XProc steps. > > Just thinking. Ah. I see. Fair enough. Be seeing you, norm P.S. Have you registered all those URI schemes with IANA? :-) -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | We ought not to heap reproaches on old http://nwalsh.com/ | age, seeing that we all hope to reach | it.-- Bion
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 12:11:00 UTC