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

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

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:15:24 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0710181015p4c5c2619obb8fbd42bc0de0d2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

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