- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:29:34 -0500
- To: <xproc-dev@w3.org>
> > Let's say you have two parameter input ports: parameters1 and > > parameters2. > > Suppose you add these parameters to parameters1: aaa=1, > bbb=2, ccc=3, > > aaa=4 > > Suppose you add these parameters to parameters2: aaa=1 > > When you read from parameters1, you will get: bbb=2, ccc=3, aaa=4 > > When you read from parameters2, you will get: aaa=1 > > In which case 2a is unclear. Unless it is stating the > obvious, that it is > not an error (your reiteration of aaa=4 in the example). > 2a seems to contradict 1. > > > Steps may have parameter input ports, on which parameters can > be passed. > > 1. Only one parameter with any given name can be passed to a step. > > 1a. If multiple parameters with the same name are used, only one of > the values will actually be available to the step. > > 2. A step can have zero, one, or many parameter input ports, and > 2a. each parameter port can have zero or more parameters passed on it. > > Perhaps > 1. Only one parameter with any given name can be passed to a > step *without loss > of an earlier parameter using the same name*? You are probably right, the sentence: "Only one parameter with any given name can be passed to a step" is not worded in the best way. You *can* pass multiple parameters with the same name, but the step only *sees* one. We should probably reformulate the sentence in the spec. Thanks for pointing this out. Regards, Vojtech
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 16:30:52 UTC