- From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:01:04 +0100
- To: vojtech.toman@emc.com
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTinh0aNM6t6L5o5RjbYhsrww5Jm_pnTt57h0+Wxj@mail.gmail.com>
Thank I had forgotten that facility That answers my question Regards, Mohamed On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:23 AM, <vojtech.toman@emc.com> wrote: > You are right, with p:identity you can do almost what you can with > p:parameters. I say almost, because with p:parameters you can also do things > like: > > > > <p:parameters> > > <p:input port=”parameters”> > > <p:pipe step=”…” port=”…”/> > > </p:input> > > <p:with-param name=”par” port=”parameters” select=”…”/> > > </p:parameters> > > > > Including p:with-param is something that you cannot do with p:identity. > > > > There is also a potential difference between p:identity and p:parameters > that the output of p:identity is just a simple identity. If you pass a > c:param-set document to it, you get a c:param-set on the output, and if you > pass a sequence of c:param documents, you get a sequence of c:param > documents. Whether you get a c:param-set document or a sequence of c:param > document (or a mixture of both) is implementation-dependent in this case: > > > > <p:declare-step name=”main”> > > <p:input port=”parameters” kind=”parameter”/> > > <p:output port=”result” sequence=”true”/> > > > > <p:identity> > > <p:input port=”source”> > > <p:pipe step=”main” port=”parameters”/> > > </p:input> > > </p:identity> > > </p:declare-step> > > > > With p:parameters, you are always guaranteed to get a single c:param-set > document which may be important if you want to query the parameters using > XPath etc. > > > > But I agree that for the simple situations, using p:identity is often much > easier than p:parameters. > > > > Vojtech > > > > -- > > Vojtech Toman > > Consultant Software Engineer > > EMC | Information Intelligence Group > > vojtech.toman@emc.com > > http://developer.emc.com/xmltech > > > > > > *From:* public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org [mailto: > public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Innovimax > SARL > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 23, 2010 8:59 AM > *To:* XProc WG > *Subject:* Why do we still have p:parameters step ? > > > > Dear all, > > It seems that we can do everything we need to handle parameter port through > p:identity or even simple connection to the read > > So I was wondering what was the point of still having p:parameters step ? > > It seems that this one is not needed at all > > Am I wrong here ? > > Mohamed > > -- > 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 € > -- 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 Tuesday, 23 November 2010 15:01:38 UTC