W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > June 2007

Re: p:input vs. p:parameter-input

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:48:19 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5b3b0leg7g.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> * Users should be required to indicate that a particular input port is
>   only for parameters on the p:declare-step (and on p:pipelines that
>   they write).
>
> * Users should be forbidden from indicating that a particular input
>   port is only for parameters on the "call" to the step. In other
>   words, p:input should be used exclusively for both.

> And
>
> * I think we should use paramters="yes|no" to indicate whether or not
>   a particular input port is only for parameters.

I can live with all this -- I note that the combination of the last
two means in practice that 'parameters' is not allowed on the "call"
to a step.

ht
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGeldzkjnJixAXWBoRAlOXAJ9nndYdw7thfbg3UGvnDZGJ4DDNUQCffZHN
XHyH9wzWyEbg4P03G9dedt0=
=/gL5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 10:48:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:53 GMT