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

Re: Parameter Calculations and Removing Complexity

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:43:05 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <873b9tvedy.fsf@nwalsh.com>
[I'm not sure how I'd missed this.]

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Hi Alex,

Arguments elided. The answer to my question I think is "Yes, we need
computed parameters in V1".

| Yes. Most XSLT processors don't give you an easy way of passing in
| anything but strings for parameters (from the command line), so I'm
| used to designing transformations where instead of passing in the XML
| configuration itself, I pass in the URI for its file.
|
| Translated into XProc, this leads to problems with step ordering. If I do:
|
|  <p:step name="save-config" type="p:save">
|    <p:input port="document" ... />
|    <p:param name="href" select="$config-uri" />
|  </p:step>
|  <p:step name="transform" type="p:xslt">
|    <p:input port="source" ... />
|    <p:input port="stylesheet" ... />
|    <p:param name="doc-template-uri" select="$config-uri" />
|  </p:step>
|
| but don't have a way (such as the order of the steps) of indicating
| that actually the 'transform' step is dependent on 'save-config' then
| my final result will be implementation-dependent.

I know I'll get chastised for saying it, but this looks like another
place where it would be convenient *for the user* if the order of
steps in the pipeline document was significant.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Received on Thursday, 12 October 2006 13:43:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:49 GMT