W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Option or parameter?

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:04:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4630CD72.9000602@jenitennison.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
> | Yes, I think both options and parameters should be scoped lexically and can be
> | shadowed. I don't think either should be automatically passed in to steps: you
> | need to use <p:option>, <p:parameter> or <p:import-parameter> to pass them in.
> 
> It seems to me that parameters ought to pass down automatically. If I
> have an XSLT step down inside a p:for-each, I'd like to be able to refer
> to parameters I specified on the command line, even if I didn't mention
> them on the p:for-each.

Perhaps I used the term incorrectly, but that's precisely what I meant 
by lexical scoping.

> | I think it would be very helpful to have a way of coercing parameters from one
> | namespace to another: perhaps using a ns attribute on <p:import-parameter>.
> 
> Hmm. So
> 
> <p:import-parameter name="config:*" ns=""/>
> 
> imports all the "config:*" parameters but moves them all to no-namespace?

Yes, precisely.

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2007 16:04:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:50 GMT