W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2008

RE: Fodder for the @name proposal

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 02:57:55 -0400
Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC7870A8B8F1C@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

> / Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say:
> | So. We're back to having awkward irrelevant namespace 
> declarations in
> | order to refer to the inputs of a pipeline explicitly, or we're
> | removing the "no null namespace" restriction.
> Er, or putting some sort of name attribute back on.
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm

Actually, I wonder if p:pipeline should have the 'type' attribute at
all. It used to make sense when it was allowed to use p:pipeline for
declaring pipelines in p:(pipeline-)library, but after it has been
replaced by p:declare-step there, I don't see any real use for the
'type' attribute on p:pipeline any more. (Except when you want to refer
to some of the pipeline's ports, of course, but then 'name' would do a
better job, I think - and it would also be more consistent and

Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 06:58:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:45 UTC