- From: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 05:34:20 -0500
- To: <xproc-dev@w3.org>
> > The template mechanism is fine, but it is a pity that it is > > only available as a step, not *directly* applicable to > > p:inline. Hence the extra step, bad readability and verbosity. > > What I would wish for were a template variant of p:inline, > > something like: > > > <p:inline-template> > > <p:with-param name="..." select="..."/> > > <p:inline> > > <foo>{$bar}</foo> > > </p:inline> > > </p:inline-template> > > I don't quite understand. What's the difference with the > following? : > > <p:template> > <p:input port="template"> > <p:inline> > <foo>{ $bar }</foo> > </p:inline> > </p:input> > <p:with-param name="bar" select="..."/> > </p:template> That p:template is a step, whereas p:inline-template is, I think, meant to be a new type of a binding, like a more dynamic p:inline. The WG actually considered this approach, as well as some others (one of the proposals was to include a @dynamic="true|false" attribute to the currently available bindings - p:inline, p:document, p:pipe etc.). But in the end, it was decided to go with a new optional p:template step. The problem with other approaches was that they would result in quite a dramatic change to the core language, and at that time it was simply too late for this. Vojtech -- Vojtech Toman Consultant Software Engineer EMC | Information Intelligence Group vojtech.toman@emc.com http://developer.emc.com/xmltech
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 10:37:32 UTC