Re: [closed] Re: p:pipe convention

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> "James Fuller" <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> consider the following contrived example;
> [...]
>> could we not omit the step attribute on the p:pipe to default mean
>> 'this' step e.g. the local step ?
>
> The WG considered this kind of "shortcut" but concluded that defining
> one kind of default for a missing p:input and another kind of default
> for missing attributes on a p:pipe would just be too confusing.


> The WG is not motivated to revisit this issue at this time, we are
> satisfied by the status quo.



> If you find this resolution unsatisfactory, please let us know.

In the spirit of moving the spec to a recommendation, yes of course
fine with this ... will leave an opportunity to improve such things in
future versions.

cheers, Jim Fuller