W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > April 2009

Re: parameters with my test runner

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:33:50 -0400
To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m2bpqpbhfl.fsf@nwalsh.com>
James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> writes:

> The other is I have a ext:xproc which runs an xproc pipeline given an input.

I have one of those now too :-)

> Plenty of the tests in the test suite define multiple inputs which
> reflect that some steps have multiple inputs (p:xslt for example).
> I could choose to define ext:xproc with all known non primary inputs
> but I would also have to define the corresponding top level inputs,
> this approach is not really maintainable.

I decided to use a wrapper, so all of the inputs are wrapped in a
single document.

> perhaps this is a good example for the use of parameters?

No, because parameters must be strings. I didn't want it that way, but
consensus went against me.

> as an aside, is the name 'parameters' reserved e.g. is this possible
>   <p:input port="parameters" kind="document"/>

No, it's not reserved, so yes, that's possible. Not on a p:pipeline,
of course, where the name is used for you implicitly.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Well-being is attained by little and
http://nwalsh.com/            | little, and nevertheless it is no
                              | little thing itself.--Zen of Citium

Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 01:46:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:03:04 UTC