On 10/18/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / 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. > Ok I jump on this one to ask why p:option should be different : why should we allow p:pipe in p:option since they behave like input for me ? 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 Thursday, 18 October 2007 17:15:38 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT