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

Re: Fodder for the @name proposal

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:34:55 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2bq4cbdjk.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Toman_Vojtech@emc.com was heard to say:
| 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
| intuitive.)

Well, you'd need the type if you wanted to make the pipeline recursive.

I think maybe it's an accidental oversight that p:pipeline isn't
allowed in p:library.

Given that p:import can import a p:pipeline, why can't you put several
p:pipeline's in a p:library?

Anyone disagree?

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Reality is what refuses to go away when
http://nwalsh.com/            | I stop believing in it.--Philip K. Dick

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 16:35:36 UTC

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