- From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 11:05:01 -0800
- To: XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > > On balance, and considering the *enormous* syntactic and semantic > simplifications it carries with it, I think the Edinburgh proposal is > "good enough". > +1 While there is one thing you can't do (re-define the default map of parameters for a certain scope), I think we've got a solution that has the right balance. We need to address the use case where "random parameter" the parameters are passed to an XSLT step without having it directly plumbed by the pipeline author. We have that and more complex situations really require that the library author explicitly take control of parameters to ensure they can be controlled. -- --Alex Milowski "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language considered." Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2014 19:05:30 UTC