RE: calling for xproc pain points, requested features, etc

My favourite gripe is that you have to explicitly name a step in order to refer to any of its inputs from a p:pipe instruction within that step.

Would it be possible to have the concept of #current or #parent as the reference to the step declaration you are in. This would be similar to XSLT 2's #current mode.

I think it would go something like this:

	<p:declare-step type="some:step">
		<p:input port="source" primary="true"/>
		<p:input port="other" primary="false"/>
		<p:output port="result"/>
		<p:add-attribute match="c:request" attribute-name="href">
			<p:with-option name="attribute-value" select="/html:link/@href">
				<p:pipe port="other" step="#parent"/>

Probably #current is not a good name because in the above example the 'current' step is p:add-attribute but its 'parent' step is the some:step declaration.



-----Original Message-----
From: James Fuller [] 
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 1:22 PM
To: XProc Dev
Subject: calling for xproc pain points, requested features, etc

As we review where we go from here with xproc.vnext can I ask people
on this list to comment on;

* highlight their top 4-5 pain points using XProc from a usability
perspective. We have captured some of these here;

* expand on what you think maybe useful for xproc.vnext, once again we
have captured some of this here

* comment on expectations for timelines on an xproc.vnext as well as
highlighting key priorities e.g. is this is a short 'fix whats broke'
or something more 'revolutionary' ?

appreciate everyone taking time and effort on this.

Jim Fuller

Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 15:03:11 UTC