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

Re: p:for-each

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 18:13:24 -0700
Message-ID: <4828ceec0608021813k857246bj9e7b42f4c68ff796@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

Jeni,

On 7/27/06, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
> > Given that there must be exactly one, is there a compelling reason to
> > do this with a p:declare-input as opposed to simply allowing those
> > attributes on the p:for-each element?
>
> I have five reasons:
>
> 1. For symmetry with <p:declare-output> in <p:for-each>
> 2. To provide a place for the naming of the input, as opposed to the
> loop itself
> 3. For symmetry with <p:declare-input> in <p:choose> (if we have them)
> 4. For symmetry with <p:declare-input> for other inputs in <p:for-each>
> (if we have them)
> 5. For extensibility should we choose (in some future version) to allow
> multiple inputs over which we iterate

I can be convinced both ways on the issue of having an additional
element for the input of the <p:for-each> vs. adding attributes on the
<p:for-each> itself. Your arguments are convincing, but I can see
someone else arguing convincingly enough the other way. I think I will
be fine both ways.

Alex
-- 
Blog (XML, Web apps, Open Source):
http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2006 01:13:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:48 GMT