Re: Parameter issue: parameters-as-documents or specialised handling

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Henry S. Thompson wrote:
|> Jeni Tennison writes:
|>> I can't see anything in Norm's proposal that *exposes* the parameters
|>> passed to a pipeline as a (sequence of) documents?

Right. I made it possible to construct a parameter set that included
them, but I didn't make it possible to get at them as a document.

|> Ah, I missed 'exposes' in your (1).  Not in V1 works for me, I'm
|> afraid.

| Actually all I need is a step like:
|
|   <p:declare-step type="p:parameter-documents">
|     <p:output port="result" sequence="yes" />
|   </p:declare-step>
|
| which returns whatever parameters it's passed as (a sequence of) XML
| documents, and I'm happy.

I'd have said:

   <p:declare-step type="p:parameters">
     <p:output port="result" sequence="no" />
   </p:declare-step>

and I'd have said the semantics of this step is that it returns, as a
c:parameters document, the set of parameters passed to it. So the
parameters passed to the pipeline are exposed with:

  <p:parameters use-parameter-sets="#default"/>

In my proposal, the parameters are passed around as c:parameter
elements in a single c:parameter*s* document.

I guess I'd be happy to discard the c:parameters wrapper and just use
a sequence of c:parameter documents.

I'm going to take the fact that Henry, Jeni, and I are in apparent
agreement as a very optimistic sign and rewrite my proposal to
incorporate the changes that Henry and Jeni suggested.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The present moment is a powerful
http://nwalsh.com/            | goddess.-- Goethe