- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 00:36:16 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 5/30/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: > |> No, it'll be (p:inline|p:document|p:pipe|p:empty)* > | > | hum... > |> > |> If you don't provide any binding at all, you get a binding to the > |> default readable port. > | > | Ok fair enough > | > | But the model as explained is troublesome (some would end up trying to > | understand, p:empty as "empty document" which has no meaning) > | so I guess > | (p:empty|(p:inline|p:document|p:pipe)+)? > > Not quite, I think it's: > > (p:empty? | (p:inline|p:document|p:pipe)*) Is this really different ?!? > > Consider: > > <p:count/> > > This counts the number of documents that appear on the default input > port. > > I think this: > > <p:count> > <p:input port="source"/> > </p:count> > > should also count the number of documents that appear on the default > input port. > > In atomic steps, I can just leave out the p:input element, but for > compound steps I can't, so it would be inconvenient if > > <p:input port="source"/> > > wasn't a request for the default binding. > > I think this: > > <p:count> > <p:input port="source"> > <p:empty/> > </p:input> > </p:count> > > counts the number of documents in the empty sequence, so it best > return zero. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | To what excesses will men not go for > http://nwalsh.com/ | the sake of a religion in which they > | believe so little and which they > | practice so imperfectly!--La Bruyère > > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 22:36:20 UTC