- 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