- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:36:38 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9069 Adam Retter <adam@exist-db.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |adam@exist-db.org --- Comment #11 from Adam Retter <adam@exist-db.org> 2010-11-01 10:36:36 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > I think it would suffice as well. Parameter-passing would be nice-to-have, but > not essential in most cases. If you do add maps, I hope they would not be > stateful (as in MarkLogic's map:map extension implementation). I would argue that being able to pass parameters to the stylesheet is required. If we dont support this functionality now, then it will need to be added sooner or later. Some implementations (including eXist-db) already provide a proprietary function for invoking XSLT from XQuery - e.g. transform:transform($node-tree as node()?, $stylesheet as item(), $parameters as element(parameters)?) as node() At present in eXist-db $parameters is really a constructed node of the form - <parameters> <param name="some-name" value="some-value"/> <param name="other-name"><a/></param-name> </parameters> I am not necessarily advocating exactly the same approach, however I do feel that parameter passing is important. XSLT allows external parameters so we should really try and support them. The approach could be similar to that used for fn:serialize in F&O 1.1. Whilst it could be done by creating some sort of map datatype, do we not already have enough scope through constructed nodes? I cannot speak for all implementations or use-cases, but typically the parameters are smaller than the XSL document itself and as such I would expect paramaters as constructed nodes to be a more efficient approach than reconstructing the XSLT as suggested in comment #4. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 10:36:39 UTC