/ James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say: | in the May 1st spec, it currently states in section 5.8 p:declare-step | | 'When a declared step is evaluated directly by the XProc processor (as | opposed to occurring as an atomic step in some container), how the | input and output ports are bound to documents is | implementation-defined.' | | I imagine this allows direct invocation of a p:declare-step, which | might look something like the following from the commandline; | |> xproc -f somexprocfile.xpl somexprocstep | | is it an oversight that there is nothing in this section about the | values/handling of other bits like parameters, options, etc ? Yes, I think so. | also, I know that we are not specifying the signature of the | commandline, but perhaps we could use the following as an example of | how option/value pairs are 'injected' into the xproc .... | |> xproc -f somexprocfile.xpl somexprocstep someoption=someoptionvalue someotheroption=someothervalue I'm a little reluctant to add specific examples of possible command line syntaxes because there are so many possibilities. | it occurs to me that we might want to consider it an error if an | option is not defined as well. That'd be err:XS0031 I think. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Wink at small faults; for thou has http://nwalsh.com/ | great ones.--Thomas Fuller (II)Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 10:38:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:25 UTC