Re: <input> for <pipeline>

• From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
• Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:58:32 +0100 (BST)
• To: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20070927135832.5558626876C@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>

> 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?

After more thought, I am convinced that this just shouldn't be
allowed.  A p:pipeline is effectively a step declaration along with
implementation of the step.  It makes no more sense to allow binding
of inputs on p:pipeline than on p:declare-step.

-- Richard

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 13:59:30 UTC