W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Minutes for XProc WG telcon of 6 Apr 2006

From: Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:20:48 +0100
Message-ID: <443BAD30.4090200@di.fc.ul.pt>
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote:
> Right. That's what we decided last week. You'd have to say:
> <p:pipeline>
>   <p:param name="debug">
>    <true/>
>   </p:param>
>   <p:step name="xslt">
>     ...
>   </p:step>
>   <p:if input="$debug" test="/true">
>     <!-- perform some debugging tasks -->
>   </p:if>
>   ...
> </p:pipeline>
> We might decide that we need something simpler for this case.

Well, if we want consistency between steps and pipelines, I believe we 
should allow the definition of simple parameters (i.e. booleans, 
integers, etc.) in a pipeline, the same way it has been talked regarding 
steps parameters. Having this helps on defining a standardized 
sub-pipeline processing component.

Also, having pipeline parameters defined in in name/value pairs eases 
their assignment in pipeline execution environments (e.g. ./xproc 
mypipe.xml -Ddebug=true).

When more complicated parameters are required, they may be defined the 
way you propose.


Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2006 13:20:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:39 UTC