Re: <input> for <pipeline>

/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
[...]
| Personnaly, I'm strongly opposed to allow to NOT bing a primary input ports

I'm sorry, could you rephrase that, I can't quite figure out what you
mean.

| Apart from that, I find it a useful a not so problematic feature
|
| But It would mean that
|
| * <!-- nothing --> (defaulted content)
| * <p:input port="secondary"/> (default binding)
| * <p:input port="secondary"><p:empty/></p:input> (empty content)
|
| could give three different result from now on (Norm it was one of your
| earlier concern).

Yes. I'd be happy to say that it *only* applies to the "initial
pipeline".

| Furthermore, it gives us one more use case for cardinality zero-or-one

How so?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Great success is commoner than real
http://nwalsh.com/            | abilities.-- Vauvenargues