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

Re: Should defaulted ports be named?

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:56:55 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2fxzi3v7c.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk> was heard to say:
| The defaulted output port of a subpipeline is given the name "result".
| And the defaulted input and output ports of a pipeline (if we keep them)
| are given the names "source" and "result".
| Since the purpose of these is to simplify the very basic case of
| straight-line pipelines, wouldn't it be better for them to have
| unusable names such as "!result"?

Yes, I think so. Just as we gave anonymous steps unreferenceable names.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A man must have grown old and lived
http://nwalsh.com/            | long in order to see how short life
                              | is.-- Schopenhauer

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 15:57:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:44 UTC