- From: Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:34:31 +0100
- To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
- Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
>> OK. In that proposal I suggest that readable ports can be declaratively assigned to variables added to the in-scope bindings. This declaration is explicit, static info and can be relied on for static analysis. > After a lot of discussion yesterday at the WG meeting, that is a lot > harder than the words you've written above make it seem like. I’m sure it’s harder. I would be really interested in the issues you found out. Will the minutes be available ? > >>> >>> Hmm, ... not sure that's a great solution. Primarily, the concept of >>> the "binary is a document" is lost by just using arbitrary values. >> >> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. > > What is the media type of the expressions "1" and "(1 2 3)” ? Yeah, that’s one issue indeed. A custom media type for XPath expressions ? > I think it makes it harder when the inputs are just > XPath expression. Simple expressions of straight though pipelines can > quite easily become non-streamable with simple tweets to the > expression. Yes, it’s hard to argue against that :) > >> >> Yeah, and to be honest I can see value in that distinction. >> >> That said, looking at the inventory of v1 steps is a red herring. Of course options universally have simple values, that cannot be otherwise. Or it would be hell too complicated to parse. >> But, if v2 allows any XDM in options (MUST req 2.5), that could change, right ? An option can theoretically be a sequence of documents. Or are you limiting it to sequence of atomic types ? >> > > Yes, we are going to give you pandora's box. You can open it if you want. FWIW I will try hard not to! > > You will be able to create steps that only have options and no inputs > (as you can today). Because V2 will allow you to have sequences of > items for those option values, you can pass all your documents via > those options. That will not stream, probably never stream. If > that's what you want, great. I suppose I wouldn’t want that, no. What I would like however, is for instance an easy way to execute a step or another depending on the count of documents appearing on a readable port. I hope XDM variables in v2 will make that use case more easy to write than it is in v1. Romain.
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2014 16:35:03 UTC