W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > September 2009

[closed] Re: Compound steps with unconnected output ports

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:38:17 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <m24ora7tly.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Suppose I have this p:pipeline:
>
> <p:pipeline>
>   <p:output port="foo" primary="false"/>
>   <p:identity/>
> </p:pipeline>
>
> The "foo" output port is not connected to anything. Also, because it is
> not primary, it will not get connected to the primary output port of
> p:identity.
>
> Is this allowed? I can't find anything in the spec that makes this an
> error, or that says what happens when I actually refer to "foo" when I
> call the pipeline.
>
> Also, would there be any difference if I declared "foo" as
> sequence="true"?
>
> The only thing I found is in section 2.2:
>
> "Within a compound step, the declared outputs of the step *can* be
> connected to: ..."
> (Notice that the sentence uses "can", not "must".)

Fixed. An unconnected port returns an empty sequence.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Those who in their youth did not live
http://nwalsh.com/            | in self-harmony, and who did not gain
                              | the true treasures of life, are later
                              | like long-legged old herons standing
                              | sadly by a lake without fish.--The
                              | Dhammapada

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 14:39:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 September 2009 14:39:01 GMT