W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > January 2008

RE: Comments on Editor's Draft 9 January 2008

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:36:59 -0500
Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC78709880B29@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>

> / Toman_Vojtech@emc.com was heard to say:
> | 1. Section 4.7.1 (options). From the schema (rng) it looks like the 
> | shortcut form can only be used for atomic steps and "other" 
> compound 
> | steps. Why isn't it possible to use the shortcut form also 
> on built-in 
> | compound steps (such as for-each or group) which can 
> specify options 
> | in the "long" form?
> I think the shortcut form only makes sense on atomic steps 
> where there's a declaration for the option. On compound 
> steps, allowing the shortcut form would be both a declaration 
> and a binding and so there'd be no way to tell if there was a 
> typo or something.

But isn't it the same also with the long option form? I mean, it is also
a declaration and a binding.

> | 5.Section 4.1 (p:pipeline): "All p:pipeline pipelines have 
> an implicit 
> | primary input port named "source' and an implicit primary 
> output port 
> | named "result". Any input or output ports that the 
> p:pipeline declares 
> | explicitly are in addition to those ports and may not be declared 
> | primary."
> |
> | 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?
> |
> | <p:pipeline>
> |   <p:input port="source" sequence="false"/>
> |   <p:output port="result" primary="false"/>
> |   <p:output port="result2" primary="true"/>
> |   ...
> | </p:pipeline>
> No. The implicit declarations of source/result cannot be 
> repeated or changed. Of course, you can use p:declare-step if 
> you want to have different values.

Now I am really confused. Does the specification mention this
possibility (declaring a pipeline with different primary input/output

I also thought it was not possible to declare different names than
"source" and "result" for primary pipeline input/output ports in
p:declare-step (the "source" and "result" strings seem to be quite
hard-coded in section 4.1 - p:pipeline), but after reading section 5.8.2
(declaring pipelines) again, I am not that sure any more. It looks to me
now that I am free to declare any primary input/output ports on a


Vojtech Toman
Principal Software Engineer
EMC Corporation

Aert van Nesstraat 45
3012 CA Rotterdam
The Netherlands

Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 08:33:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:25 UTC