- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 08:23:10 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Alex Milowski wrote: > 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 It works in exactly the same way. <p:group> has at least one parameter input port, and any <p:parameter> elements within the <p:group> are used to create the <c:parameters> document that's bound to that parameter input port. That parameter input port is then exposed to steps contained in the <p:group>, and by default they are passed that <c:parameters> document as well. Cheers, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2007 07:23:16 UTC