Skip to content
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

Clarification on p:document necessary #175

Closed
xml-project opened this issue Oct 2, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

Clarification on p:document necessary #175

xml-project opened this issue Oct 2, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@xml-project
Copy link
Member

xml-project commented Oct 2, 2017

In the XProc 3.0 we explain p:document via reference to p:load. But as I recall, dynamic evaluation like
<p:with-input>
<p:document href="{$a}" document-properties="map{'content-type',$c}" />
<p:with-input>
is not possible, because p:document is not a step and @href and @document-properties are no options of that (non-) step.

If this is right, it might be useful to add a line to the prose of p:document saying that the values of 'href', 'document-properties' and 'override-content-type' are evaluated statically and that p:load should be used for dynamic value evaluation.

@ndw
Copy link
Contributor

ndw commented Oct 4, 2017

I think we want to allow dynamic evaluation as you've shown. The only reason you need p:load in XProc 3.0, I think, is if you need DTD validation. We could almost remove p:load, but I don't think we should.

@xml-project
Copy link
Member Author

xml-project commented Oct 5, 2017

No objection! The specs say: "In an attribute that is designated as an attribute value template ...", but we have not marked them yet. For some, like @name and @Depends it is clear, that we need static evaluation.
We should discuss, how far we want to go here and I do not have a clear option on this yet. Making (almost all) dynamic will clearly enhance expressibility, but it (since we loose static checking) it will lead to more pipelines failing. I think PR #183 is a good approach.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants