- From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:05:18 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote: > / Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> was heard to say: > | Norm, > | > | On 10/25/06, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote: > |> I imagine we still need import-param for the case where we want to > |> say: > |> > |> <p:step type="xslt"> > |> <p:input .../> > |> <p:input .../> > |> <p:import-param name="db:*"/> > |> </p:step> > | > | May I ask what the use case is for this? > | > | In any programming language, a construct that lets you pass everything > | you have in scope to another function/step isn't in my book exactly > | the type of construct that encourages a clean programming style. > > Consider an XSLT stylesheet with, say, 532 parameters. (I just > checked, that's how many the DocBook stylesheets accept.) If you want > to allow someone to pass those parameters through from the pipeline to > an XSLT component inside that pipeline, it's impractical to list all > of them. That's my recollection of where import-param came from. Right now, you'd have to declare al 532 parameters at the pipeline level at minimum. Do you think we need to do something about that as well (e.g. allow implicit parameters) ? --Alex Milowski
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 14:05:46 UTC