- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:21:32 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> So is the following generalization sufficient? > > Where I had one anonymous infoset, you propose a list of anonymous > infosets. Each step consumes all of them (perhaps by ignoring some of > them) and produces zero or more. Provided that you allow for the multiple output infosets from one step may be consumed by different steps. I also want a single output to be connectable to multiple steps' inputs, but we could have (conceptually at least) a "tee" component that produces multiple copies of its input. > You also have "local names" which I'm on the fence about, but I think > that's a seperable issue. The local names are merely a mechanism to allow the graph to be represented in XML; they are irrelevant to the processing model itself. I think we should explicitly separate the processing model from the XML representation of the pipeline: the XML document represents a graph of steps, and the processing model describes how the graph is executed. -- Richard
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2006 19:21:49 UTC