- From: Geert Josten <geert.josten@dayon.nl>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:44:05 +0100
- To: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Actually, I don't really understand why the parameters port is returning a sequence at all. Can anyone give a use case for that? I was kinda surprised it isn't normalized with a p:parameters under the hood by default.. About sequence input: if you use the ut:parameters within a declare-step that has non-sequence primary input, ut:parameters will receive just a single doc and pass that through identically. So, it works anyhow. But perhaps useful for static analysis. Though, it is my impression, it isn't that advanced yet. (These no-doc or multi-doc errors could be prevented with it largely I'd think. Not sure though, always tricky cases like an XSLT producing wrong results..) Kind regards, Geert -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: fgeorges@gmail.com [mailto:fgeorges@gmail.com] Namens Florent Georges Verzonden: dinsdag 22 november 2011 1:19 Aan: Geert Josten CC: Norman Walsh; XProc Dev Onderwerp: Re: Initialize a variable with a parameter port On 21 November 2011 21:57, Geert Josten wrote: Hi, > You can put it just below your inputs, outputs and options as a > simple <ut:parameters name="params"/>. After that you have to > use a p:group, and declare p:variables at the top of that with > a <p:pipe step="params" port="parameters"/>. Yes, that's more or less what I had in mind too. The problem for a generic step is that you have to choose between a sequence or not for the primary input port (which is supposed to be the pass-through). Probably both ut:parameters and ut:parameters-seq would make sense then... Nice library of tools, BTW :-) Regards, -- Florent Georges http://fgeorges.org/ http://h2oconsulting.be/
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 06:44:35 UTC