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

Re: <input> for <pipeline>

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:30:42 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2prztbei5.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ 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

| 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

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

How so?

                                        Be seeing you,

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

Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 18:30:54 UTC

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