- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:40:12 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87r6qknrpf.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| On 4/16/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
|> 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>
|>
|
| It should be p:identity no ? p:load has no input
Yes. Sorry. I started with the idea that I'd load from a URI then
switched to an inline document without changing the name.
|> <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 would say that $elemcount is undefined in that case,
Ok, that's fine by me. No forward references.
|> I assume that options and parameters are in entirely different
|> namespaces, so:
|>
|> <px:debug>
|> <p:parameter name="opt1" value="3"/>
|> <p:parameter name="opt2" select="$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?
|
| Surely not : how do I access to an parameter value in a option ? In a
| group, I can only define a p:parameter so :
| 1) p:option has no access to p:parameter nor p:option (only static content)
| 2) p:option has access to p:parameter only
| 3) p:option has access to p:parameter and p:option
| 4) p:option has access to p:option only (non sense for me)
|
| I prefer 2, then 3
If we go with case 2 or 3 then do we say that this is an error:
<px:debug>
<p:parameter name="opt1" value="3"/>
<p:option name="opt1" value="5"/>
</px:debug>
Are we sure we want the existence of an option to preclude the
existence of a parameter with the same name?
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 17:40:23 UTC