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

Re: Context for p:option

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:34:57 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <876461gq9q.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| 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:customize>
|    <p:input port="primary">
|     <p:pipe step="top" port="stylesheet"/>
|    </p:input>
|    <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?

No, we don't. I think adding the concept of "primary input" distinct
From "default readable port" is likely to be quite confusing so I'd
rather not do it.

On the basis of this example, I think I'd prefer to say that the
context for p:option is undefined if there's no explicit binding.
Which was my original position before Jeni persuaded me otherwise.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A life, admirable at first sight, may
http://nwalsh.com/            | have cost so much in imposed
                              | liabilities, chores and self-abasement,
                              | that, brilliant though it appears, it
                              | cannot be considered other than a
                              | failure. Another, which seems to have
                              | misfired, is in reality a triumphant
                              | success, because it has cost so
                              | little.--Henry De Montherlant

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 13:35:34 UTC

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