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: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:29:15 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bwsxognk4.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
> | Ah right, so you expect non-default <p:input>s that are unbound to
> | default to an empty sequence. (And therefore generate a (static) error
> | if they're not declared to accept a sequence.)
> |
> | I don't violently object to that; it just wasn't specified in the proposal.
> I think I do object.
> First, I don't want this
>   <p:step>
>     <p:input port="something"/>
>   </p:step>
> to be semantically different from
>   <p:step/>
> That is, I don't mind if authors put in empty inputs, but I don't want
> it to be different from just leaving the input out.

I probably withdraw the empty sequence idea, but I don't agree with
_this_.  The first is the user explicitly acknowledging that they know
the (secondary) port exists, and want the system to bind it for them.
The second is the user forgetting about the port altogether.  That
should raise an error.

- -- 
 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 Thursday, 28 June 2007 14:29:19 UTC

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