- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:57:43 +0000
- To: "Toman\, Vojtech" <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
- Cc: "public-xml-processing-model-wg\@w3.org" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Toman, Vojtech writes: > Continuing our discussion in the call, suppose we drop the notion of > parameters altogether, and only rely on options that are maps. Since > we are going to support AVTs, we can then do things like this: > <p:declare-step> > <p:input port="source"/> > <p:output port="source"/> > <p:option name="xquery-params" as="map:map(xs:QName, item()*)?"/> > <p:option name="xslt-params" as="map:map(xs:QName, item()*)?"/> > > <p:xquery parameters="$xquery-params"> > ... > </p:xquery> > > <p:xslt parameters="$xslt-params"> > ... > </p:xslt> > </p:declare-step> But, either I'm missing something, we've lost the un-named parameters? That is, from the command-line, I'm guessing you're assuming something along the lines of Norm's example for specifying parameters in _named_ groups, but that's it. Otherwise there's no way to know where to put parameter bindings which come from the command line, is there? That means we have no way to reconstruct the current simple command line for a pipeline with an xslt step, right? ht -- Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 16:58:12 UTC