- From: Geert Josten <geert.josten@dayon.nl>
- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 14:22:53 +0100
- To: Paul Tyson <phtyson@sbcglobal.net>, xproc-dev@w3.org
Hi Paul, Could you give a small example? It does sound like related to p:document-template and p:template, but not sure if those extensions from XMLCalabash are still working, and supported.. Cheres, Geert > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Paul Tyson [mailto:phtyson@sbcglobal.net] > Verzonden: zaterdag 9 november 2013 4:32 > Aan: xproc-dev@w3.org > Onderwerp: embedded pipelines > > I don't know if this is in the Xproc standard (some parts are still a > mystery to me), or if it has been implemented anywhere, but I wanted to > put it out for comment. > > It would sometimes be convenient to embed pipeline steps in a > (non-xproc) XML document, and then perform an xproc step on the > document > with the effect of replacing all the embedded pipelines with their > results. The input document would serve as a template, with replaceable > content specified by the pipeline steps. > > This would work like p:replace, except that the invocation would not > specify what parts of the input document to work on or what to do with > them: the "match" expression would be fixed to select all pipeline steps > in the input, and the "replacement" document would be the result of > evaluating each pipeline. The outer pipeline author and the template > authors would have to arrange for the embedded steps and all resources > to be known and available in the processing context. > > For example, well-formed xhtml or xsl-fo documents could contain > pipeline steps that would expand to the intended content based on > parameter inputs. This approach would lend itself to easier analysis, > documentation, and maintenance than other popular templating > mechanisms. > > This is a similar concept to the "simplified" XSLT templates, by which > any XML document can be treated as an XSLT stylesheet, with restrictions > on the xslt features that can be included. > > If others think this might be useful, consider adding it to the > requirements for Xproc v2. > > Regards, > --Paul >
Received on Saturday, 9 November 2013 13:23:23 UTC