Re: Types for Option Values

/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| On 5/23/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
|> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
|> | We definitely need to pass namespaces in to the step
|>
|> Actually, I think you have to keep the namespace context that's
|> associated no only with the step, but also with each of it's p:option
|> and p:parameter elements. Users probably aren't actually going to change
|> the namespace bindings between p:option elements, but there's nothing to
|> stop them.
|
| We can
| If we say that the namespaces defined at the
| option/parameter/input/output level are put together, and in case of
| duplicate, there is an error !

We could. But that feels a little uncomfortable to me.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The human race consists of the
http://nwalsh.com/            | dangerously insane and such as are
                              | not.--Mark Twain