19 messages in org.w3.xproc-devRe: Fileutils| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Norman Walsh | May 25, 2009 11:58 am | |
| David A. Lee | May 25, 2009 2:21 pm | |
| Norman Walsh | May 25, 2009 2:26 pm | |
| Norman Walsh | May 25, 2009 3:11 pm | |
| Dave Pawson | May 25, 2009 10:04 pm | |
| mozer | May 25, 2009 11:34 pm | |
| Toma...@emc.com | May 26, 2009 12:19 am | |
| Norman Walsh | May 26, 2009 5:06 am | |
| Norman Walsh | May 26, 2009 5:07 am | |
| Norman Walsh | May 26, 2009 5:09 am | |
| Dave Pawson | May 26, 2009 6:49 am | |
| Norman Walsh | May 29, 2009 4:27 am | |
| Toma...@emc.com | May 29, 2009 4:47 am | |
| James Fuller | Jun 1, 2009 5:07 am | |
| Leif Warner | Jun 1, 2009 9:28 am | |
| James Fuller | Jun 1, 2009 9:43 am | |
| Norman Walsh | Jun 1, 2009 9:43 am | |
| James Fuller | Jun 1, 2009 10:17 am | |
| Norman Walsh | Jun 1, 2009 11:22 am |
| Subject: | Re: Fileutils | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Norman Walsh (nd...@nwalsh.com) | |
| Date: | May 26, 2009 5:09:55 am | |
| List: | org.w3.xproc-dev | |
"Toma...@emc.com" <Toma...@emc.com> writes:
Great work!
Q: Should "file" be made absolute wrt to the current base URI, or left unchanged (effectively making it relative to the implementations notion of current working directory)?
I would say the former (make absolute against the current base URI) since it would be more consistent with how the core XProc steps behave. For instance, the p:load and p:store steps, or the p:document construct use the current base URI. (On the other hand, I am well aware of the problems with getting the current working directory in XProc...)
I think you're probably right. My hesitation stems from the fact that these are not operations on URIs, they're operations on files.
Just one thought: what about making these steps more generic, and make the use an "href" option instead of "file"? That would allow implementations to support also other URI schemes than "file".
If we make them absolute wrt the base URI, then I definitely think they should have an 'href' option not a 'file' option. Delete is the only "action" step that I think makes any sense for URI schemes other than file, but I guess all the info ones make sense.
For instance, in our implementation we support a whole bunch of URI schemes, and support for additional URI schemes can be easily providedby the user/programmer. I can imagine that one may want to use the fileutils steps to access the classpath, for instance, or even collections/documents in a native XML database, ... In our implementation, all you have to do is to pass a different URI scheme to the XProc steps.
Just thinking.
Ah. I see. Fair enough.
Be seeing you, norm
P.S. Have you registered all those URI schemes with IANA? :-)
-- Norman Walsh <nd...@nwalsh.com> | We ought not to heap reproaches on old http://nwalsh.com/ | age, seeing that we all hope to reach | it.-- Bion