- From: Hans-Juergen Rennau <rennau@bits-ac.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:57:40 +0100
- To: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- CC: vojtech.toman@emc.com, xproc-dev@w3.org
Hi Florent, yes, exactly like Vojtech wrote - the p:inline-template was meant as a new binding, to be used like this: <p:insert ...> <p:input port="insertion"> <p:inline-template> ... </p:inline-template> </p:input> ... </p:insert> Kind regards, -- Hans-Juergen Am 10.03.2011 11:34, schrieb vojtech.toman@emc.com: >>> 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 10:58:17 UTC