W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: A parameters alternative

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:24:07 +0000
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2pqdnt29k.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"vojtech.toman@emc.com" <vojtech.toman@emc.com> writes:
>> I was thinking that the parameters option would take a list:
>>   <p:xslt parameters="p:global my:computed other:whatever">...
> Oh, I think I misunderstood your initial email. So using parameters="A
> B C" means that the union of all parameters in A, B, and C will be
> passed to the step? If so, how do you then access the parameters
> inside the step? Using the name "parameters" or using "p:global",
> "my:computed" etc.?

Do we need that? If you want to access them in a step, you can use
options. I'm imagining that parameters retain their magic bindings in
XSLT, XQuery, etc.

> To declare a step with two parameter "ports", would you do something like this:
> Or, if we treat parameter "ports" as options with a special type:
> <p:declare-step>
>   <p:option name="xquery-params" type="parameter"/>
>   <p:option name="xslt-params" type="parameter"/>
>   ...
> </p:declare-step>
> Or we could get rid of the word parameter altogether and simply call
> the type "collection" or "map".

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Though I imagined that the type would
be "p:parameters" defined as a final extension of "list of QName" or
some such.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 413 624 6676

Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 10:24:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:50 UTC