- From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:05:24 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Alex Milowski wrote: > > Henry S. Thompson wrote: > >> >> With respect, I think it's important _not_ to conflate inputs and >> parameters. This connects up with our discussion on the call >> yesterday: inputs, in the prototypical case at any rate, are XML >> documents, whereas parameters are (or are adequately modelled as) >> name-value pairs. Not at all the same thing, and confusing to try to >> use a single term to cover both. > > Here I have to agree as I view parameters as something that might be > a simple value (like a string) or an XML document, while inputs > are *only* XML documents. > > It would, of course, be really nice that it is easy to hook up an > output of a step to a parameter of another step. I am not 100% we have built a strong case for parameters. It looks like they are only needed for XSLT. Do we have other use cases? This was one of the motivations to go toward the XDM: whether you are talking about "inputs" or "parameters", there would be no difference with the XDM. My fear is that now, will will have two concepts: "input" and "parameters". They won't work the same, and the question of how or whether a step can produce data which gets connected to a "parameter" remains open. -Erik
Received on Friday, 10 February 2006 17:05:46 UTC