- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:24:05 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 10/3/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > | In 2.3 Primary Inputs and Outputs > | > | Please add the same précaution for "source" and "result" than the > | following in 2.5 Parameters > | [[ > | (If the pipeline declares an ordinary input named "parameters", the > | implicit primary parameter input port will be named "parameters1". If > | that's not available, then "parameters2", etc. until an available name > | is found.) > | ]] > > I don't think that's really necessary. It's not going to matter to > anyone unless they use parameters. Ok my point was that you make such precaution for parameters than you haven't done for input port="source" and output port="result" That mean, in case of a name conflict which name do you generate for default input and default output ? > > | In 3 Syntax Overview > | > | Please add Parameter Input ports to this list > | [[ > | Six kinds of things are named in XProc: > | > | 1. Step types, > | 2. Steps, > | 3. Input ports, > | 4. Output ports, > | 5. Options, and > | 6. Parameters > | ]] > > I think of parameter input ports as a kind of input port. So I think > item 3 covers it, but if you feel strongly about it, I won't put up a > fight :-) I make this point because you seem everywhere in the spec to speak separatly of "input ports" and "parameter input ports", so to be consistent, it will be better Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 13:24:13 UTC