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

Re: Options or parameters

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 15:14:10 +0100
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bmz0mhu4t.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Having read through this thread, I want to ask a perhaps naive
question:  why are we requiring parameter declarations at all?

We seem to be converging on the

  option:parameter::pre-known:not-pre-known 

story.  So what are we actually accomplishing by trying to declare
parameters?  The 90% case will surely be <p:parameter name="*"/>,
which carries almost no information. . .

So I offer a tentative but radical proposal:  

  1) No more parameter declarations.

  2) Parameter _binding_ is OK -- you may want to give a parameter a
     value in a pipeline or group or step -- fine.

  3) No more parameter importing -- it likewise serves no purpose --
     all in-scope parameters are available to a step.

  4) But preventing parameter name clashes _is_ sometimes needed, so
     replace p:import-parameters with

       <p:parameters from-ns="...." to-ns="...."/>

ht
- -- 
 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]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGOe4ykjnJixAXWBoRAswkAJ44ApA7zm26CcrIuJu6ivKFrL9ACACfaXo/
5YAHPMoRul9neMeLKZdSd7M=
=oXi4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 14:14:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:51 GMT