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

Re: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:04:00 +0000
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5b8x4zzh27.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
>
> | On the other hand, I understand Henry's (and Richard's) urge to
> | make/keep simple pipelines simple.
> |
> | So what about a rule that says "if a pipeline is called *at all* then
> | it must have declared its inputs and outputs explicitly". This keeps
> | the neat defaulting rules for the common/simple case of a single
> | pipeline to do a quick job, but means that if you're planning to
> | expose your pipelines for other people to call, then you have to take
> | the extra step of declaring the inputs and outputs to the pipeline.
>
> That seems reasonable to me.

Is this compromise still judged viable?  I would definitely prefer it
to the proposed universal requirement for input and output
declarations. . .

ht
- -- 
 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]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHPF/gkjnJixAXWBoRAlvcAJ9MEsN7fPRdHFNccLz0+vxSrujXigCfQyVP
KewDNVTO5H3jbsyNX4uUMbk=
=fv0H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 15:04:16 GMT

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