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

Re: <input> for <pipeline> (action A-87-01)

From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:13:41 -0800
Message-ID: <4828ceec0711121513o5775ec9k4ec2ce9d59dd8aa0@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

On Nov 12, 2007 8:36 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> In 5.1, add:
>
>   An input declaration may include a default binding. If no binding is
>   provided for an input port which has a default binding, then the
>   input is treated as if the default binding appeared.
>
>   A default binding does not satisfy the requirement that a primary
>   input port is automatically connected by the processor, nor is it
>   used when no default readable port is defined. Consequently, it is
>   pointless to provide a default binding for any primary input port
>   except on a p:pipeline that is invoked directly by the processor.
>
>   It is a static error for a p:pipe to appear in a default binding.
>
> [...]
>
> 2. A p:declare-step or a p:pipeline in a library can define defaults
> for all of its inputs, be they primary or not, but defining a default
> for a primary input is a no-op. It's never used since the the step,
> when it's called, will always bind the primary input port to the
> default readable port (or cause a static error).

Editorial note: your explanation (after "2." above) is much clearer to
me than the second paragraph above you suggest to add to the
specification. Could somehow the text you will be inserting in the
specification contain some of this wording, to help people like me ;).

Alex
-- 
Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms, open-source, for the Enterprise
http://www.orbeon.com/
Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 23:13:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT