- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:00:33 +0000
- To: "Rui Lopes" <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
- Cc: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Hello I'm not sure to understand all your resquest but imagine it is a XSLT-like parameter style Then a parameter is just a xsl:variable-like so can be accessed via XPath That's another point for XPath to be intimately related to XProc Mohamed On 4/10/06, Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt> wrote: > > > > > Conditionals and sub-pipelines > > > > Norm: Richard proposed a single standard conditional that takes a > document > > and an XPath, is that enough? > > > > Norm wonders if the WG thinks that's all we need > > > > Henry: If you need something really complicated, you can write an > > arbitrarily complicated computation that produces a document. > > ... And then switch on that conditional. > > > > Proposal: The pipeline conditional component is XPath expression over > > document. If you need more, build a document and use that? > > > > Accepted. > > > I've been thinking a bit more about this issue. On the assumption that > we allow specifying pipeline parameters (like step/component parameters > - which I would like to have in the language), shouldn't we allow > conditionals over these parameters? I wouldn't like to have to produce a > document for activating a simple debug flag inside an XProc-based > application, for instance. > > > Rui > > > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 ------=_Part_1948_1623835.1144663220609--
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2006 09:46:35 UTC