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

Re: defaulting

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:51:17 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5b1wg0nl3u.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> / ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
> | Yes.  Consider
> |
> |  <p:pipeline>
> |   <p:validate-xml-schema/>
> |  <p:pipeline>
> |
> | I want that to validate based on what it finds in the document, not
> | try to use it as a schema to validate itself.
> How do you expect this to work? I assume that the 'source' port is the
> default input, so it gets bound to the pipeline's implicit default
> input, but it seems to me that the 'schema' port is not the default
> and is not bound to the default input port, in which case it's an
> unbound input port and that's an error.

Hmm.  I guess I was assuming, probably without justification, that an
unbound sequence input wasn't a problem. . .

This makes me wonder if the difference between [0,unbounded) and
[1,unbounded) input signatures might be useful after all. . .

- -- 
 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]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 14:51:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:43 UTC