- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:43:05 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <873b9tvedy.fsf@nwalsh.com>
[I'm not sure how I'd missed this.] / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say: | Hi Alex, Arguments elided. The answer to my question I think is "Yes, we need computed parameters in V1". | Yes. Most XSLT processors don't give you an easy way of passing in | anything but strings for parameters (from the command line), so I'm | used to designing transformations where instead of passing in the XML | configuration itself, I pass in the URI for its file. | | Translated into XProc, this leads to problems with step ordering. If I do: | | <p:step name="save-config" type="p:save"> | <p:input port="document" ... /> | <p:param name="href" select="$config-uri" /> | </p:step> | <p:step name="transform" type="p:xslt"> | <p:input port="source" ... /> | <p:input port="stylesheet" ... /> | <p:param name="doc-template-uri" select="$config-uri" /> | </p:step> | | but don't have a way (such as the order of the steps) of indicating | that actually the 'transform' step is dependent on 'save-config' then | my final result will be implementation-dependent. I know I'll get chastised for saying it, but this looks like another place where it would be convenient *for the user* if the order of steps in the pipeline document was significant. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh XML Standards Architect Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 12 October 2006 13:43:25 UTC