- 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