- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:26:32 +0100
- To: Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jostein Austvik Jacobsen <josteinaj@gmail.com>, James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>, XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
On 19 February 2014 14:07, Romain Deltour wrote: > b. what I suggested (on tweeter) was not an extension of the > "kind" attribute Interesting. Actually I missed that part of Jostein's email, I have just seen it now that I saw this mention in your own email. What is interesting is that I was writing a response to Jostein suggesting exactly the same thing as he did: being able to define the "kind" of a port, and being able to connect implicitly outputs ports to the inputs ports of the same kind on the net step. In addition to that "use a kind in order to create it", which looks like @mode in XSLT 1.0 and 2.0 (a mode exists as soon as you create a template rule with a @mode with that name), there could even be a p:kind declaration (like XSLT 3.0 introduces xsl:mode). This has 2 advantages: detecting typos (if you make a typo, a new kind is not created but the compilation gives you an error), and allowing to set properties on the kind itself (is there an opportunity to set a content-type?, validate outputs and inputs based on a schema?, asking the processor to log all documents flowing through ports of a given kind, etc.) That would probably solve verbose explicit bindings between steps of the same library or application, acting on the same (sets of) kinds of documents. Regards, -- Florent Georges http://fgeorges.org/ http://h2oconsulting.be/
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 13:27:20 UTC