RE: Functions binding to XProc variables

Hello,

One answer at least to what I just asked is Yes:

   <p:declare-step name="report-status" type="ox:report-status">
      <p:input port="source"/>
      <p:output port="result"/>
      <p:identity message="[STATUS REPORT] SEEING '{ p:document-property(.,'content-type') }' AT { p:document-property(.,'base-uri') }"/>
   </p:declare-step>

This is arguably more XProc-like although I'm still curious about the variable scoping issue (and variance between processors).

Thanks,
Wendell


From: Piez, Wendell A. (Fed) <wendell.piez@nist.gov>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2025 11:02 AM
To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Subject: Functions binding to XProc variables

Hello,

In a diagnostic pipeline I have this at the head of the subpipeline:

<p:variable name="ox:document-info" as="function(*)"
      select="function($d as item()) as xs:string { p:document-property($d,'content-type') || ' at ' || p:document-property($d,'base-uri') }"/>
When I use it like this

<p:identity message="[CONTENT-TYPE-worksheet] Seeing { $ox:document-info(.) }"/>

I get an error back from XML Calabash (3.0.0-alpha14)

Fatal err:XD0030: Step failed: "A function created under one Configuration cannot be called under a different Configuration".
   at file:/mnt/c/Users/wap1/Documents/usnistgov/oscal-xproc3/tutorial/worksheets/CONTENT-TYPE_worksheet.xpl:5:5

But Morgana XProc IIIse v1.4 evaluates the function returning the value I expect (and indeed different values as they trace the pipeline's changes to the properties).

Which one is correct? Should I be thinking of another way of accomplishing my goal?

In line with what I just said in the other thread, should I just cook up a custom identity step? (I will try that next.)

Thanks for any insights,
Wendell