W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > December 2008

RE: parameters

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:29:34 -0500
Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC7870DBC13E6@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>
To: <xproc-dev@w3.org>


> > Let's say you have two parameter input ports: parameters1 and
> > parameters2.
> > Suppose you add these parameters to parameters1: aaa=1, 
> bbb=2, ccc=3,
> > aaa=4
> > Suppose you add these parameters to parameters2: aaa=1
> > When you read from parameters1, you will get: bbb=2, ccc=3, aaa=4
> > When you read from parameters2, you will get: aaa=1
> 
> In which case 2a is unclear. Unless it is stating the 
> obvious, that it is
> not an error (your reiteration of aaa=4 in the example).
> 2a seems to contradict 1.
> 
> 
> Steps may have parameter input ports, on which parameters can 
> be passed.
> 
> 1. Only one parameter with any given name can be passed to a step.
> 
> 1a. If multiple parameters with the same name are used, only one of
> the values will actually be available to the step.
> 
> 2. A step can have zero, one, or many parameter input ports, and
> 2a. each parameter port can have zero or more parameters passed on it.
> 
> Perhaps
> 1. Only one parameter with any given name can be passed to a 
> step *without loss
> of an earlier parameter using the same name*?

You are probably right, the sentence: "Only one parameter with any given
name can be passed to a step" is not worded in the best way. You *can*
pass multiple parameters with the same name, but the step only *sees*
one. We should probably reformulate the sentence in the spec.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Regards,
Vojtech
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 16:30:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 December 2008 16:30:53 GMT