Re: Naming

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| The main point of my suggestion was the nesting of some element within
| a port declaration in order to provide the binding for the port. I'm

I guess I'm confused then.

| quite happy to change the name to something that gives less
| encouragement to the reader to think of pipes and steps separately.
|
| One other possibility I thought of was <put>: something like
|
| <step kind="xslt" name="transform">
|   <put in="source" source="validated!result" />
|   <put in="stylesheet" load="style.xsl" />
| </step>

Instead of:

 <step kind="xslt" name="transform">
   <input port="source" source="validated!result" />
   <input port="stylesheet" href="style.xsl" />
 </step>

?

| and
|
| <group name="...">
|   <input name="document">
|     <put source="previous-step!result" />
|   </input>
|   <output name="result">
|     <put source="inner-step!result" />
|   </output>
|   ...
| </group>

instead of:

 <group name="...">
   <input port="document" source="previous-step!result" />
   <output port="result" source="inner-step!result" />
 </group>

?

Sorry, I'm no doubt missing something, but I don't see how the
additional element helps.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.