- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 22:47:05 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Norm, On 9 Oct 2009, at 21:57, Norman Walsh wrote: > Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes: >> So here's >> my dumb question: the only outputs that you need to care about are >> the >> ones that are connected, so couldn't a processor work out what >> outputs >> a step is supposed to have based on the connections to those outputs? > > Could it? I did say it was a dumb question. There's always a disconnect between the user's "surely it should work like..." and the implementer's "no, it has to work like..." I was really thinking about explicit connections (ie not to primary ports) directly to XProc steps. I think it's reasonable to constrain future versions not to add primary ports to existing steps, if that helps any. Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 21:47:33 UTC