- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:51:48 -0500
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
> / Toman_Vojtech@emc.com was heard to say:
> | Since the p:pipeline now always contains an implict "source" input
> | port and an implicit "result" output port, I wonder if the
> same cannot
> | be done with the parameter inputs.
> |
> | Section 2.5 says:
> |
> | "Additionally, if a p:pipeline does not declare any parameter input
>
> Hmm, that should probably read "p:pipeline or p:declare-step" now.
>
> | ports, but contains a step which has a primary parameter
> input port,
> | then an implicit primary parameter input port (named 'parameters')
> | will be added to the pipeline. (If the pipeline declares an
> ordinary
> | input named 'parameters', the implicit primary parameter input port
> | will be named 'parameters1'. If that's not available, then
> 'parameters2', etc.
> | until an available name is found.)"
> |
> | Cannot this be changed to something like:
> |
> | "All p:pipeline pipelines have an implicit primary parameter input
> | port named 'parameters'. Any parameter input ports that the
> p:pipeline
> | declares explicitly are in addition to this port and may not be
> | declared primary."
>
> It could, but I don't think it would be less confusing. I
> don't expect explicit parameter ports to be needed very often
> and probably almost never on a p:pipeline.
Are you sure? For me, one of the most typical pipelines looks as
follows:
<p:pipeline type="preview">
<p:input port="stylesheet"/>
<p:input port="parameters" kind="parameter"/>
<p:xslt>
<p:input port="stylesheet">
<p:pipe step="preview" port="stylesheet"/>
</p:input>
<!-- the "parameters" port will be bound to the primary parameter
input port of the pipeline -->
</p:xslt>
</p:pipeline>
The pipeline just takes a sequence of XML documents and applies a
(parametrized) XSLT stylesheet to them. The thing is that I can rewrite
it also as follows:
<p:pipeline type="preview">
<p:input port="stylesheet"/>
<p:xslt>
<p:input port="stylesheet">
<p:pipe step="preview" port="stylesheet"/>
</p:input>
</p:xslt>
</p:pipeline>
In which case the primary parameter input port on the pipeline will be
manufactured automatically. This is fine, only that it makes developing
XProc-based application more difficult. In the latter case, the
application does not explictly know what parameter input port to use for
passing the XSLT parameters to the pipeline.
Regards,
Vojtech
--
Vojtech Toman
Principal Software Engineer
EMC Corporation
Aert van Nesstraat 45
3012 CA Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 08:48:06 UTC