- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:54:27 +0100
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jeni Tennison writes:
> Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>> Jeni Tennison writes:
>>
>>> Really? I don't expect it to work like Henry does at all. The
>>> analogous situation in XSLT is:
>>>
>>> <xsl:apply-templates select="some/element">
>>> <xsl:with-param name="strId" select="@id" />
>>> </xsl:apply-templates>
>>>
>>> Do you expect $strId to be set based on the id attribute of the
>>> element(s) that you apply templates to (some/element), or based on the
>>> node that you're on when you do the apply templates?
>> I don't see the analogy -- please expand.
>
> You are processing something (a document in XProc, an element in
> XSLT), and passing an argument to the component doing the processing
> (a step in XProc, a template in XSLT). In both, there is some context
> (a default readable port in XProc, a current node in XSLT) in scope
> when the component is invoked.
>
> In both, the value of the argument is being set using an XPath
> expression. In XSLT, the XPath expression is evaluated relative to the
> current node (context) when you invoke the template, not the element
> that you process with the template. In XProc, I'd expect the XPath
> expression to be evaluated relative to the default readable port, not
> the documents that you process with the step.
I disagree, because I think the analogy is imperfect. The lexical
position of the 'argument' setting is telling, it seems to me --
p:option is _inside_ the step (yes, I know the step definition is
elsewhere, but it's _so_ elsewhere that your analogy breaks down,
IMO).
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGZsqjkjnJixAXWBoRAkM2AJ4ucgXYXHsCQBTy14uOk5frO2vmZgCeIYb2
htklOvf4ZJnp0ALSuf9y8jA=
=MN97
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 14:54:44 UTC