- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 14:50:08 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
2009/5/26 Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>: > Ok. I also proposed a 'create temporary file' step in a follup-up message. same as 'touch' except specifies a temp file? I'm easy either way. > >> delete (file|directories [recurse]) >> copy (file|directory [recurse]) >> mv (file|directory) > > I go the file ones. I suppose the directory options make sense. file or directory, easier if handles either? > >> (I've never used 'is readable|writable|exists - but I can see it being useful) >> (rename? I'd prefer move) > > The file properties step gives you (a superset?) of what those steps > return, doesn't it? mv (as in Unix mv)? Is that included? > >>> 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)? >> >> Any use made of PATH variable? > > No. We're not talking about executables (in general). > >> Treat as per current OS, i.e. could be relative or absolute? > > It can always be absolute, the question is what to do if the author > puts in a relative name. Confict? XML/xproc has xml:base (or may do) My 'OS' centric view expects you to use the current path? Your choice Norm > >> Using base URI would make it 'odd' wrt other file utils? > > Odd wrt command line file utils, but *not* doing it is odd wrt other > XProc steps. Yes, as I said, your choice, but possibly aligned with rest of xproc would annoy | catch out fewer users. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 13:50:44 UTC