RE: Comments on Editor's Draft 9 January 2008

So, just to make sure I understand the implicit input/output ports on
p:pipeline (or that I am totally confused, depending on how you look at
that :), are the following the following statements true?

1. Inside p:pipeline, explicit bindings cannot be provided for implicit
input/output ports. In other words, the following is not allowed:

<p:pipeline>
  <p:output port="result">
    <!-- "not-matched" is a non-primary output port of p:split-sequence
-->
    <p:pipe step="split" port="not-matched"/>
  </p:output>
  <p:split name="split" test="..."/>
</p:pipeline>

and should be rewritten as follows:

<p:pipeline>
  <p:split name="split" test="..."/>
  <p:identity>
    <p:input port="source">
      <p:pipe step="split" port="not-matched"/>
    </p:input>
  </p:identity>
</p:pipeline>

2. Implicit input/output on p:pipeline accept sequences of documents.

3. If the implicit input/output port of a pipeline is not bound to any
document, it contains an empty sequence.

Regards,
Vojtech

--
Vojtech Toman
Principal Software Engineer
EMC Corporation

Aert van Nesstraat 45
3012 CA Rotterdam
The Netherlands

Toman_Vojtech@emc.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 1:46 PM
To: Toman, Vojtech
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comments on Editor's Draft 9 January 2008

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> So, is it allowed to explicitly specify the implicit input/output 
> ports inside p:pipeline? If so, is it possible to redefine their 
> properties (primary, sequence)? Is the following permitted?

No.

> <p:pipeline>
>   <p:input port="source" sequence="false"/>
>   <p:output port="result" primary="false"/>
>   <p:output port="result2" primary="true"/>
>   ...
> </p:pipeline>

No.

Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 13:15:18 UTC