- From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 15:17:01 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On 5/2/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > The point of this proposal is that you wouldn't design a pipeline in > that way: if you want to access a value within a pipeline then you must > pass it in as an option rather than a parameter. So the above would be > done with: > > <p:pipeline name="my:foo"> > <p:input port="source"/> > <p:output port="result"/> > <p:option name="param-a" /> > <p:parameter name="*"/> > <p:xslt2> > <p:input port="stylesheet"> > <p:document href="foo2html.xsl"/> > </p:input> > <p:parameter name="param-a" value="$param-a" /> > <p:parameter name="param-b" value="$param-a" /> > <p:import-parameter name="*"/> > </p:xslt2> > </p:pipeline> > > This gives a clear, easily understandable distinction between options > and parameters. Fair enough, I am convinced. So I agree: we only need to be able to refer to options in XPath expression. Alex -- Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms for the Enterprise http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 22:17:05 UTC