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

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

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:46:53 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m28x60wete.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk> was heard to say:
| Section 5.1: "On a p:pipeline, [p:input] is both a declaration and a binding."
|
| What bindings make sense for a pipeline input?  p:pipe doesn't, because
| there's nothing to connect it to.  The others don't seem of much use:
| why have the input at all if the user can't connect to it?

I propose that we add the following, probably in 5.1, but perhaps in both
5.1.1 and 5.1.2, whatever seems best editorially.

  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.

  It is a static error to provide a default binding for a primary input
  port. It is a static error if a p:pipe appears in a default binding.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Individuality seems to be Nature's
http://nwalsh.com/            | whole aim--and she cares nothing for
                              | individuals.-- Goethe

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 16:47:05 GMT

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