- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:40:07 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
On 24 March 2013 17:25, Norman Walsh wrote: Hi, > With respect to the file utilities steps on exproc.org: > http://exproc.org/proposed/steps/fileutils.html > I think experience suggests that having steps with a single output port > that's "secondary" is a mistake. Yes, I agree, it makes using them sequentially rather counter-intuitive. Having them as primary integrates easier in a pipeline, I think. By the way, I am not convinced by the 'error-if-fail' which if false returns the c:error in case of error. That is really like catching the error and returning its c:error document, the only difference being it saves the user typing the try/catch structure. I am not sure that is really helping the user at the end of the day. Forcing try/catch promotes another way of handling errors, rather than ignoring them silently (which will occur I guess with error-if-fail="false"). Eventually, are you aware of http://expath.org/spec/file, the EXPath File module? I am not sure it applies here, but maybe it would be handy having the same naming conventions for instance. Regards, -- Florent Georges http://fgeorges.org/ http://h2oconsulting.be/
Received on Sunday, 24 March 2013 16:40:54 UTC