- From: Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:26:47 +0000
- To: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
- CC: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 14:27:28 UTC
Erik Bruchez wrote: > I am not 100% we have built a strong case for parameters. It looks like > they are only needed for XSLT. Do we have other use cases? In the followup of Alex's reply, I also believe parameters should be separate from inputs. If we want to reuse some pipeline, we may allow its reuse through parameterization. This enforces some standardization of parameter specification for (at least) XSLT and blackboxed pipelines. > > My fear is that now, will will have two concepts: "input" and > "parameters". They won't work the same, and the question of how or > whether a step can produce data which gets connected to a "parameter" > remains open. > My feeling is that parameters should not be bound to data, but to component configurability. Therefore, we should be careful on allowing connection between data and parameters. Rui
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 14:27:28 UTC