- From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 14:37:07 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 5/23/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > > Alex Milowski wrote: > > I'm a little confused by: > > > > "If no binding is provided for a parameter input port, a default > > binding is constructed. If the step's container has exactly one > > parameter input port, then this port is bound to it. If the container > > does not have exactly one parameter input port, then this port is > > bound to a document that consists only of an empty c:parameters > > element." > > > > So, that means the in-scope parameters for the contained steps are > > "bound" to any > > unbound parameter input port, right? > > Yes, except there aren't any in-scope parameters, only parameter input > ports on the container. That doesn't work with how p:group can bind parameters via the status quo. That makes the fact that p:group as a p:parameter element not make much sense. http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/alternate/#p.group -- --Alex Milowski "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language considered." Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2007 21:37:17 UTC