- From: Toman, Vojtech <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 07:56:15 -0400
- To: "public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: James Fuller [mailto:jim@webcomposite.com] > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 12:05 PM > To: Toman, Vojtech > Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: "Fixing parameters" > > 4. A common use case is to have steps that produce parameters as a > c:param-set/c:param documents. If we decided to drop p:with-param, how > would you - without forcing the users to go to the bottom of the XProc > hell and back - feed that output into some other step's parameters? > > > > IMO, ppl using parameters are now in a kind of XProc hell True, but I still think it is quite common to apply a step to create the parameters dynamically and then pass them to another step. What that requires is basically the ability to create maps and pass them around easily, or some kind of feature that takes an XML document (c:param-set/c:param or maybe even arbitrary XML), or a sequence of XML documents, and turns it into a map somehow. > ... have we > stated backwards compat as a *must* for vnext ? Not sure about that one. But my proposal for non-XML support (that I am plan to submit later today) for sure breaks backward compatibility in a few areas. Just in a few, but it does. On the other hand, I think it can be made backward compatible at the expense of making it slightly less user friendly. Regards, Vojtech -- Vojtech Toman Consultant Software Engineer EMC | Information Intelligence Group vojtech.toman@emc.com http://developer.emc.com/xmltech
Received on Friday, 14 September 2012 11:56:54 UTC