- From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:44:15 +0200
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On 5/28/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > Yes. I felt there was a problem doing this because you can't specify > options unless the component has defined them (this being the difference > between options and parameters). > > If the in-scope options are passed into every step anyway, [...] Yes, this is how I understand options. Pipeline authors need to know the name of the options they want to pass to components when they write the pipeline. But components just can access all the options passed to them. Assuming this, the following looks pretty good to me: > In other words, you could do: > > <p:parameter-set name="xslt-parameters"> > <p:input port="source"> > <!-- inherit parameters from the parent pipeline --> > <p:pipe step="pipe" source="parameters" /> > <!-- add a couple of extra ones based on options --> > <p:inline> > <c:parameters> > <c:parameter name="foo" select="$foo" /> > <c:parameter name="baa" > select="translate($foo, 'fo', 'ba')" /> > </c:parameters> > </p:inline> > </p:input> > </p:parameter-set> > <p:xslt> > ... > <p:input port="parameters"> > <p:pipe step="xslt-parameters" source="result" /> > </p:input> > </p:xslt> Yes, it would be a little shorter if we had some construct to do this in the language. But parameters are right now only used for XSLT. And maybe this is a question of style but more often than not I see people writing stylesheets that don't take parameters. So is it worth adding a whole concept of parameter to the language just for this? Personally, I don't think so. Alex -- Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms, open-source, for the Enterprise http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 19:44:20 UTC