- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:06:11 -0400
- To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <m2ab3sxe4c.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org> writes: > This pipeline outputs the content of the parameter input port: > > <p:declare-step xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc" > xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc-step" > name="myPipeline"> > > <p:input port="parameters" kind="parameter"> > <p:inline> > <c:param-set> > <c:param name="Title" value="First and Last Freedom" /> > <c:param name="Author" value="J. Krishnamurti" /> > <c:param name="Date" value="1954" /> > <c:param name="ISBN" value="0-06-064831-7" /> > <c:param name="Publisher" value="Harper & Row" /> > </c:param-set> > </p:inline> > </p:input> > > <p:output port="result" sequence="true" /> > > <p:identity> > <p:input port="source"> > <p:pipe step="myPipeline" port="parameters" /> > </p:input> > </p:identity> > > </p:declare-step> > > Surprisingly, I get as output two <c:param-set> elements: That's a bug. But it raises an interesting question. What should happen if you run the above pipeline like this: $ calabash pipeline.xpl name=value Should the parameters port contain a parameter named "name" or not? My first thought is that it should not. But I could be persuaded otherwise, since we already treat parameters somewhat specially. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | In theory, there is no difference http://nwalsh.com/ | between theory and practice, but not in | practice.
Received on Sunday, 28 June 2009 21:06:55 UTC