> > - Can I use document() in an XLST transformation that points to an XPL
> > file that gets executed?
>
> That"s something I have thought about. I don"t think that its
> possible right now (except of course if you wrote your files on
> disk but I wouldn"t advise that) but I"d like to submit an idea to
> the development team here...
This is not possible at the moment. We would have to implement a new
protocol to supports this. Another suggestion was to implement XSLT
extension functions. Yet another one was to provide a processor
supporting pipeline and/or PFC inclusion inclusion "tags" (ideally a
generic "tag library" system).
> Since XPL requires that you declare the inputs, why not allow to
> declare other inputs than just "config" and "data" for the XSLT
> processor and provide a protocol to access these inputs by name
> from the document function?
>
> That could give something such as:
>
> <p:processor name="oxf:xslt">
> <p:input name="config" href="oxf:/lucene/affiche.xsl"/>
> <p:input name="data" href="oxf:/lucene/cherche.xhtml"/>
> <p:input name="request" href="#request"/>
> <p:output name="data" id="xhtml"/>
> </p:processor>
>
> and, in the XSLT transformation something such as:
>
> <xsl:apply-templates select="document("input:request")"/>
>
> where "input:foo" would mean the input named "foo".
This is an excellent suggestion. So much so that it has been
implemented since a long time ;-) You can access the additional inputs
with document('oxf:blah'), where "blah" is the name of the input. I am
now wondering why this is not clearly documented.
> I think that this would be very flexible and easier to use than
> aggregates where you get to know the position of each input that is
> aggregated while here, you"d access the inputs by name.
This is exactly the reason why we decided to implement it this
way. The XUpdate processor also supports the same syntax, and this is
in fact often used with Page Flow, with document('oxf:action') and
document('oxf:instance'). I think your suggestion of using the
protocol "input:" is not bad. We went with "oxf:" at the time, but it
may become confusing as "oxf:instance" means a reference to an input,
while "oxf:/instance" means a reference to a resource.
-Erik
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on
who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM.
Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php
_______________________________________________
orbeon-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/orbeon-user
