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 17:31:52 +0100
Message-ID: <44524378.7060105@di.fc.ul.pt>
To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Alex Milowski wrote:
> So, for example, chaining XSLT transforms together should have some
> defaults:
> 
> <step type='xslt'>
>    <input name="stylesheet" ref="..."/>
> </step>
> <step type='xslt'>
>    <input name="stylesheet" ref="..."/>
> </step>
> 
> Of course, the problem is, does that XSLT output one document or many?
> Does it take in one or many?
> 
> I think a useful default is that there *one* implicit input and *one*
> implicit output.  If that doesn't match the context in which the step
> is used, halt-and-catch-fire.

What if we have a step whose component has zero inputs or zero outputs, 
e.g.:

<step type="i-accept-zero-inputs" />
<step type="xslt">
   <input name="stylesheet" ref="..." />
</step>

It looks ambiguous to me. We could certainly delegate this type of 
semantics to each component, but afaik it wouldn't be good (specially 
for outter-spec components' semantics).

Cheers,
Rui

Received on Friday, 28 April 2006 16:32:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:47 GMT