- 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