Re: Parameter input ports

/ Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> was heard to say:
| On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> 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?

Yes. I think I could live with that, but what happens in the following
case:

<p:declare-step name="main" type="...">
  <p:input port='source'/>
  <p:input port='style'/>
  <p:output port='result'/>

  <p:xslt>
    <p:input port='stylesheet'>
      <p:pipe step="main" port="style"/>
    </p:input>
  </p:xslt>
</p:declare-step>

The p:xslt step has an unbound parameter input port. Is that an error,
or do we bind it to an empty document?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | There is no such thing as an absolute
http://nwalsh.com/            | certainty, but there is assurance
                              | sufficient for the purposes of human
                              | life.--John Stuart Mill