Richard & Henry wrote: > Further to discussion during yesterday's telcon, herewith a proposal > about input and output defaulting for pipelines. I like this. Just one thing: > The default input of a step is bound to the default readable port if > it is not otherwise bound; > > Non-default inputs are only bound to the default readable port if > you call for that to happen by writing > <p:input port="not-the-default-input-port"/> The other option would be to say that all inputs are bound to the default readable port if they're not explicitly bound, such that <p:pipeline> <p:xslt1 /> </p:pipeline> accepts an XSLT stylesheet input and runs it on itself (this is actually something I do quite a lot). It would make the defaulting story slightly easier to specify, since an omitted input would *always* be equivalent to an empty <p:input> element for that port. Is there any reason not to do that? Also, I'm assuming that the default readable port after a given step would be the default output of the previous step (in document order)? Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.comReceived on Friday, 22 June 2007 18:41:09 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:53 GMT