W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > November 2010

Re: First draft of template note

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:07:21 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTin0qVuhZhFc5feQxQnBinZ6shg0Z6ZXsqHvbens@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:43 AM,  <vojtech.toman@emc.com> wrote:
>
> I think Alex meant making "parameters" a primary *non-parameter* input
> port. That would work, but it would also be, IMHO, a real twisting of
> conventions used in the spec...
>

Twisted or not, the point is that the pipeline in the note is pretty
much how everyone will have use the template step.  There won't be
much "default binding" because of the need to get the current
variables/options into a set of parameters.

I've re-read what the recommendation says about primary parameter
input ports and, well, it leaves me wholly unsatisfied but not much
can be done about this.  As it stands, they work as specified but the
inability to make this simpler for these kinds of pipelines possibly
indicates an issue.

Maybe we should add a "make using parameters, variables, and options
easier" to our considerations for what we do next.  It seems to me
that if we decide that we can have node values, there may be more
issues.

BTW, I'm fine with the current draft of this note.  I was just
exploring some other options.

-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 11:07:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 8 November 2010 11:07:55 GMT