- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:39:26 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87odlopbv5.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Consider: <p:declare-step type="px:debug"> <p:parameter name="*"/> <p:option name="opt1"/> <p:option name="opt2"/> </p:declare> Then, I believe our intent is that the following is legal: <p:load name='loader'> <p:input port="source"> <p:inline> <doc/> </p:inline> </p:input> </p:load> <px:debug> <p:parameter name="elemcountplus1" select="$elemcount+1"/> <p:parameter name="elemcount" select="count(//*)"> <p:pipe step="loader" port="result"/> </p:parameter> </px:debug> And it's up to implementations to make sure that parameters get evaluated in the right order and that there are no circular dependencies. (In this case, elemcount=1 and elemcountplus1=2.) I assume that options and parameters are in entirely different namespaces, so: <px:debug> <p:parameter name="opt1" value="3"/> <p:parameter name="opt2" select="$opt1+1"/> <p:option name="opt1" value="5"/> <p:option name="opt2" value="$opt1+1"/> </px:debug> Means the px:debug component gets two parameters, opt1 and opt2, with the values 3 and 4, respectively, and two options, opt1 and opt2, with the values 5 and 6, respectively. Right? Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh XML Standards Architect Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 15:39:37 UTC