RE: XProc Usability (was Re: New to Xproc Question : conditionnal "output port" definition?)

Just jumping in and out in the middle, regarding compactness..

It would already help a lot if the specs could be tuned such that you can rely more on default behavior, or could write things with less characters:
- You would not need the p:with-option stuff if attribute value templates were supported from the start.
- Things like generating empty input taking up 5 lines (p:identity with p:input with p:empty inside), can't that be done shorter?
- Maybe something specific to XMLCalabash, but why can't I just do p:variable with a p:pipe connecting to parameters port? It complains about context, forcing me to pipe the parameters through a p:parameters first, and rerouting input around the p:parameters as well.
- Lot's of extensions don't produce output, but do take input without doing much with that (most notably the file io extensions for example). Why not just let them do identity transform as well, making it much easier to do a large sequence of such steps..

Just a few cents..

Kind regards,
Geert

> >     *deep breath*
> >
> >     Going back to my earlier comparison: if XProc is like XSD, then
> >     tools like XMLSH are like Relax-NG. Both XMLSH and RNG (or RNC)
> >     solve the same goals as W3C specs, and they both do it with a
> >     very significantly lower learning curve.
> 
> Would a non-XML syntax for XProc help?
> 
> I have one. I presented it as a "PechaKucha" lightning talk at XML
> Summer School.
> 
> XML Syntax:
> 
> <p:pipeline xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc"
>             version='1.0'>
> <p:serialization port="result"
>                  method="xhtml" indent="true"/>
> 
> <p:xinclude/>
> 
> <p:xslt>
>   <p:input port="stylesheet">
>     <p:document href="dbslides.xsl"/>
>   </p:input>
> </p:xslt>
> 
> </p:pipeline>
> 
> "Compact" syntax:
> 
> pipeline {
>   serialization "result" with method="xhtml", indent="true"
>   xinclude
>   xslt {
>     input "stylesheet" {
>       document "dbslides.xsl"
>     }
>   }
> }
> 
> What struck me most after writing it is that it's not really much more
> compact than the XML syntax. Jeni Tennison took up the challenge to
> produce a more natural compact syntax. I'm having trouble getting
> JavaCC to swallow it, but I'll get there eventually, I expect.
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 14:48:38 UTC