- From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:57:01 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Well... I don't think that we screwed up We were consistent in having step that take one document and let the user manage himself the iteration (like the proposal you gave) Especially if there is no added value on wrapping it with a p:for-each like in this case Mohamed On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > "Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes: >>> Please tell me there was some good and compelling reason why the >> source >>> port on p:filter does not accept a sequence. Please tell me we didn't >>> just screw up. >> >> ......I think we did. > > Blast. Well, at least it's easy to work around: > > <p:declare-step type="x:filter-sequence"> > <p:input port="source" sequence="true"/> > <p:output port="result" sequence="true"/> > <p:option name="select" required="true"/> > <p:for-each> > <p:filter> > <p:with-option name="select" select="$select"/> > </p:filter> > </p:for-each> > </p:declare-step> > > But...damnit. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Even while a thing is in the act of > http://nwalsh.com/ | coming into existence, some part of it > | has already ceased to be.--Marcus > | Aurelius > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 12:57:35 UTC