New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Think about renaming input connections to "p:with-input" #106

Closed
xml-project opened this Issue May 19, 2017 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@xml-project
Contributor

xml-project commented May 19, 2017

From a conversation with @gimsieke (hope to remember right) a while ago:
In XProc 1.0 "p:input" is used for port declaration as well as to provide an input connection to a declared port.
This could be a potential source of confusion to XProc learners.

For options we have the distinction between "p:option" (declaration) and "p:with-option" (providing a value). By reserving "p:input" for declaration and "p:with-input" for providing a connection, XProc 3.0 might be more consistent and (hopefully) easier to learn.

Proposal:

  1. Change "p:input" to "p:with-input" in http://spec.xproc.org/master/head/xproc30/#input-connections.

  2. Apply the new term accordingly in the rest of the specs.

@xml-project

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@xml-project

xml-project Aug 27, 2017

Contributor

@ndw @gimsieke Any comments on this?

Contributor

xml-project commented Aug 27, 2017

@ndw @gimsieke Any comments on this?

@gimsieke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gimsieke

gimsieke Aug 27, 2017

Contributor

Let’s discuss it in Aachen and maybe have a straw poll then. I personally can live with both. I do, however, think that naming these two usages of p:input differently can indeed help novices realize faster that there’s a difference.

Contributor

gimsieke commented Aug 27, 2017

Let’s discuss it in Aachen and maybe have a straw poll then. I personally can live with both. I do, however, think that naming these two usages of p:input differently can indeed help novices realize faster that there’s a difference.

@ndw

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ndw

ndw Aug 27, 2017

Contributor

I'm willing to give it a try. It's even more verbose, but we could certainly publish a few pipelines with this format and see what the users think in Aachen.

Contributor

ndw commented Aug 27, 2017

I'm willing to give it a try. It's even more verbose, but we could certainly publish a few pipelines with this format and see what the users think in Aachen.

@xml-project

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@xml-project

xml-project Aug 28, 2017

Contributor

I will prepare some of the examples in the specs with "p:with-input" and put them on a new wiki page for Aachen.

Contributor

xml-project commented Aug 28, 2017

I will prepare some of the examples in the specs with "p:with-input" and put them on a new wiki page for Aachen.

@xml-project

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@xml-project

xml-project Sep 5, 2017

Contributor

Added a page to the Aachen wiki with comments. I will add another example or two in the next days.

Contributor

xml-project commented Sep 5, 2017

Added a page to the Aachen wiki with comments. I will add another example or two in the next days.

@eriksiegel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eriksiegel

eriksiegel Sep 14, 2017

Contributor

IMHO using with-input simply makes the whole language a lot clearer and less ambiguous, especially for novices. And whatever lowers the entrance barrier to XProc is to beseriousy considered. I'm in favor because ot this.

Contributor

eriksiegel commented Sep 14, 2017

IMHO using with-input simply makes the whole language a lot clearer and less ambiguous, especially for novices. And whatever lowers the entrance barrier to XProc is to beseriousy considered. I'm in favor because ot this.

ndw added a commit to ndw/3.0-specification that referenced this issue Sep 26, 2017

ndw added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 26, 2017

@xml-project

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@xml-project

xml-project Sep 29, 2017

Contributor

Solved with pull request #144

Contributor

xml-project commented Sep 29, 2017

Solved with pull request #144

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment