- From: Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:05:40 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > I don't follow. Our strategy for document inputs names them "source" > and "result" and makes it an error to attempt to define another port > with those names. Are you suggesting that we should do the same thing > for parameter inputs? Or are you suggesting that an implicit parameter > input port doesn't need a name, and so cannot be explicitly > referenced? I am suggesting that since p:declare-step doesn't declare implicit document input ports, it shouldn't declare implicit parameter input ports either (as described in section 2.9). And as far as p:pipeline is concerned, since it already automatically declares the "source" document input port and "result" document output port, I have no problem saying that it also automatically declares a "parameters" parameter input port. Does this make sense? > It does. The tableaux at the beginning of 5.1.2 specifies it and the > fourth paragraph below that explains it. Doesn't it? Yes, it does. Somehow its didn't occur to me that 5.1.1 was specifically about document inputs. My bad. Alex -- Orbeon Forms - Web 2.0 Forms, open-source, for the Enterprise Orbeon's Blog: http://www.orbeon.com/blog/ Personal Blog: http://avernet.blogspot.com/
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 02:06:19 UTC