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

Re: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output

From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:45:16 +0100 (BST)
To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson), Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20071025144516.7CE312767F8@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>

>   For the purposes of output defaulting

"Output defaulting" is not defined and is not entirely clear.  Say
something more explicit such as "determining whether a subpipeline
with no declared outputs has an implicit primary output".

>    1) It is an atomic step whose step type definition specifies a
>       primary output port;
>    2) It is a named pipeline whose definition includes an explicit
>       primary output port;
>    3) It is a p:choose one of whose branches has a *last step* with a
>       primary output port;
>    4) It is a p:try whose p:group has a *last step* with a primary
>       output port;
>    5) It is some other compound step whose *last step* has a primary
>       output port;

Perhaps it would be better to define "last atomic step" and then say
"a last atomic step that is a named pipeline is considered to have a
primary output only if its definition explicitly includes one".

We need a similar rule for p:pipeline inputs.

Is this definition also used when checking compatibility of choose and
try branches?

-- Richard
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 14:45:40 UTC

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