W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Parameter input ports

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:13:16 -0700
Message-Id: <EB4410B7-B143-4201-B0A6-191BF0AC6F20@orbeon.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

A couple of comments:

2.9 Parameters

I read:

Additionally, if a p:pipeline or p:declare-step does not declare any  
parameter input ports, but contains a step which has an unbound  
primary parameter input port, then an implicit primary parameter input  
port (named “parameters”) will be added to the pipeline. (If the  
pipeline declares another (non-parameter) port named “parameters”, the  
implicit primary parameter input port will be named “parameters1”. If  
that's not available, then “parameters2”, etc. until an available name  
is found.)

Sorry if I missed the discussion about this, but I fail to see why we  
need to adopt a defaulting strategy for parameter inputs that is  
different than the one we have for document inputs. Adopting the same  
strategy would also avoid having those implicit names "parameters",  
"parameters1", ... created.

5.1.1 Document Inputs

I read:

The kind attribute distinguishes between the two kinds of inputs:  
document inputs and parameter inputs. An input port is a document  
input port if kind is specified with the value “document” or if kind  
is not specified.

Shouldn't we also say there what the value of "kind" should be to  
specify that this is a parameter input? (i.e. parameter)

Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms, open-source, for the Enterprise
Orbeon's Blog: http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
Personal Blog: http://avernet.blogspot.com/
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2008 01:13:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:45 UTC