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

Re: Alternate "parameters" draft

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 08:23:10 +0100
Message-ID: <46553D5E.8080704@jenitennison.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Alex Milowski wrote:
> On 5/23/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>> Alex Milowski wrote:
>> > I'm a little confused by:
>> >
>> > "If no binding is provided for a parameter input port, a default
>> > binding is constructed. If the step's container has exactly one
>> > parameter input port, then this port is bound to it. If the container
>> > does not have exactly one parameter input port, then this port is
>> > bound to a document that consists only of an empty c:parameters
>> > element."
>> >
>> > So, that means the in-scope parameters for the contained steps are
>> > "bound" to any
>> > unbound parameter input port, right?
>> Yes, except there aren't any in-scope parameters, only parameter input
>> ports on the container.
> That doesn't work with how p:group can bind parameters via the
> status quo.
> That makes the fact that p:group as a p:parameter element not make much 
> sense.
> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/alternate/#p.group

It works in exactly the same way. <p:group> has at least one parameter 
input port, and any <p:parameter> elements within the <p:group> are used 
to create the <c:parameters> document that's bound to that parameter 
input port. That parameter input port is then exposed to steps contained 
in the <p:group>, and by default they are passed that <c:parameters> 
document as well.


Jeni Tennison
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2007 07:23:16 UTC

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