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

Re: Why do we still have p:parameters step ?

From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:01:04 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinh0aNM6t6L5o5RjbYhsrww5Jm_pnTt57h0+Wxj@mail.gmail.com>
To: vojtech.toman@emc.com
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Thank

I had forgotten that facility

That answers my question

Regards,

Mohamed

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:23 AM, <vojtech.toman@emc.com> wrote:

>  You are right, with p:identity you can do almost what you can with
> p:parameters. I say almost, because with p:parameters you can also do things
> like:
>
>
>
> <p:parameters>
>
>   <p:input port=”parameters”>
>
>     <p:pipe step=”…” port=”…”/>
>
>   </p:input>
>
>   <p:with-param name=”par” port=”parameters” select=”…”/>
>
> </p:parameters>
>
>
>
> Including p:with-param is something that you cannot do with p:identity.
>
>
>
> There is also a potential difference between p:identity and p:parameters
> that the output of p:identity is just a simple identity. If you pass a
> c:param-set document to it, you get a c:param-set on the output, and  if you
> pass a sequence of c:param documents, you get a sequence of c:param
> documents. Whether you get a c:param-set document or a sequence of c:param
> document (or a mixture of both) is implementation-dependent in this case:
>
>
>
> <p:declare-step name=”main”>
>
>   <p:input port=”parameters” kind=”parameter”/>
>
>   <p:output port=”result” sequence=”true”/>
>
>
>
>   <p:identity>
>
>     <p:input port=”source”>
>
>       <p:pipe step=”main” port=”parameters”/>
>
>     </p:input>
>
>   </p:identity>
>
> </p:declare-step>
>
>
>
> With p:parameters, you are always guaranteed  to get a single c:param-set
> document which may be important if you want to query the parameters using
> XPath etc.
>
>
>
> But I agree that for the simple situations, using p:identity is often much
> easier than p:parameters.
>
>
>
> Vojtech
>
>
>
> --
>
> Vojtech Toman
>
> Consultant Software Engineer
>
> EMC | Information Intelligence Group
>
> vojtech.toman@emc.com
>
> http://developer.emc.com/xmltech
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Innovimax
> SARL
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 23, 2010 8:59 AM
> *To:* XProc WG
> *Subject:* Why do we still have p:parameters step ?
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> It seems that we can do everything we need to handle parameter port through
> p:identity or even simple connection to the read
>
> So I was wondering what was the point of still having p:parameters step ?
>
> It seems that this one is not needed at all
>
> Am I wrong here ?
>
> Mohamed
>
> --
> Innovimax SARL
> Consulting, Training & XML Development
> 9, impasse des Orteaux
> 75020 Paris
> Tel : +33 9 52 475787
> Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
> http://www.innovimax.fr
> RCS Paris 488.018.631
> SARL au capital de 10.000 €
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 15:01:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 November 2010 15:01:39 GMT