Re: Parameter input ports

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Norman Walsh <> wrote:
>  I don't follow. Our strategy for document inputs names them "source"
>  and "result" and makes it an error to attempt to define another port
>  with those names. Are you suggesting that we should do the same thing
>  for parameter inputs? Or are you suggesting that an implicit parameter
>  input port doesn't need a name, and so cannot be explicitly
>  referenced?

I am suggesting that since p:declare-step doesn't declare implicit
document input ports, it shouldn't declare implicit parameter input
ports either (as described in section 2.9).

And as far as p:pipeline is concerned, since it already automatically
declares the "source" document input port and "result" document output
port, I have no problem saying that it also automatically declares a
"parameters" parameter input port.

Does this make sense?

>  It does. The tableaux at the beginning of 5.1.2 specifies it and the
>  fourth paragraph below that explains it. Doesn't it?

Yes, it does. Somehow its didn't occur to me that 5.1.1 was
specifically about document inputs. My bad.

Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms, open-source, for the Enterprise
Orbeon's Blog:
Personal Blog:

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 02:06:19 UTC