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 14:20:54 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2d4vcuvw9.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
|> 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?

Yes, I guess you're right. Drop the second static error. (And see my
scope of options mail for how ugly *that* can get :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Our years, our debts, and our enemies
http://nwalsh.com/            | are always more numerous than we
                              | imagine.--Charles Nodier

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 18:21:05 GMT

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