- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:56:40 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87lkcvgsef.fsf@nwalsh.com>
The main reason I see for allowing the step/port to be defaulted on p:pipe is to continue our drive towards syntactic cleanliness. Consider: <p:pipeline> <p:input port="document" primary="yes"/> <p:input port="stylehseet"/> <p:xinclude/> <p:xslt> <p:input port="stylesheet"> ??? </p:input> </p:xslt> </p:pipeline> The primary input, the document, flows naturally through the pipeline. But in order to link the pipeline's stylesheet input to the XSLT step, we need to add a name to the pipeline and fully qualify the port: <p:pipeline name="main"> <p:input port="document" primary="yes"/> <p:input port="stylehseet"/> <p:xinclude/> <p:xslt> <p:input port="stylesheet"> <p:pipe step="main" port="stylesheet"/> </p:input> </p:xslt> </p:pipeline> If we allowed the step and port to be defaulted, then we could simply say: <p:pipeline> <p:input port="document" primary="yes"/> <p:input port="stylehseet"/> <p:xinclude/> <p:xslt> <p:input port="stylesheet"> <p:pipe port="stylesheet"/> </p:input> </p:xslt> </p:pipeline> Similarly, in cases where a subsequent step wanted the primary output From another step, it could simply refer to the step and not bother with "port='result'". I don't feel strongly about it, but it seems not unreasonable to me. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything should be made as simple as http://nwalsh.com/ | possible, but no simpler.
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 15:56:52 UTC