W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Naming ports vs. naming documents

From: Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:45:05 +0100
Message-ID: <44522A71.6000609@di.fc.ul.pt>
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk> was heard to say:
> | I'm assuming that there's a component description somewhere with the
> | signature of the component in it.  The XSLT component has "source" and
> | "stylesheet" inputs and a "result" output, so all instances of the
> | XSLT component have them.  There is no need for any ports to be
> | mentioned in the pipeline except to connect them up. 
> I see. Yes, that would work, but I think I'd prefer to make all the
> inputs and outputs explicit in each step even if it's not technically
> necessary. I think allowing all those defaults would make pipelines
> much harder to read.

I agree. Having defaults and assumptions raises the bar for language 
knowledge. By making them explicit, they become pretty straight-forward 
to understand. However, it may be argued that by not having defaults, it 
will be more "tedious" to code pipelines by hand (but that's what GUIs 
are for).


P.S. I'm still playing catch-up on the mailing list, since I've been on 
holidays for 1.5 weeks.

Received on Friday, 28 April 2006 14:45:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:39 UTC