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

Re: Context for p:option

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:03:58 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5babvdflgx.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> For p:input (and its friends: p:iteration-source, etc.) if there's
> no explicit binding, the binding is made to the default readable port.
> Jeni pointed out, I think correctly, that users will expect a select
> expression on p:option to also be bound to the default readable port
> by default.
> Anyone disagree?

Not strongly, but I think what people will _really_ expect is that it
will be bound to the primary input of the step by default.  As long as
that input defaults, this makes no difference, but I think users will
be surprised if they write

 <p:pipeline name="top">
  <p:input port="stylesheet"/>
  . . .
   <p:input port="primary">
    <p:pipe step="top" port="stylesheet"/>
   <p:option name="version" select="/xsl:stylesheet/@version"/>
   . . .

and it doesn't work.

Unfortunately, we still don't have a notion of primary input, do we?

- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 10:04:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:43 UTC