- From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 23:07:49 +0200
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On 5/22/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > I didn't add the concept of a default parameter port, but we do need the > concept of an implicit binding for parameter ports, I think. Otherwise, > the pipeline author has to explicitly allow parameters to be passed from > the pipeline to contained steps. Certainly, I wouldn't want to require parameters to be explicitly bound to a "for-each" or a "choose". Parameters visible outside of the "for-each" should be automatically visible inside of the "for-each". But I wouldn't expect parameters to be passed automatically to an XSLT step. We call all those steps, but attempting an analogy with other programming languages, XSLT or schema validations are more like functions, while "for-each" and "choose" are more like language constructs. A notion of scope is very natural for language constructs. But when dealing with things are more like functions, most languages avoid automatically exposing to the callee the parameters of the caller. Does this make sense? > I think we'll have better luck getting consensus on the draft if we > don't do that :-) Promised: if this stops us from getting a consensus, I will just shut up :). Alex -- Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms for the Enterprise http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 21:07:54 UTC