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

RE: New draft

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:48:27 -0500
Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC7870DD15CFA@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

> I've published a new editor's draft containing the 
> resolutions for issues
> 016 and 020, I believe.

Great, thanks!

Just one thing. Some time ago, there was some discussion about
binding/connecting to input ports, and we concluded that "from inside
the step", you don't have to connect to its input ports. But section
5.1.2 still contains this text:

"If a parameter input port on a p:pipeline is not bound, it is treated
as if it was bound to an automatically created p:sink step. In other
words, if a p:pipeline does not contain any steps that have parameter
input ports, or if those ports are all explicitly bound elsewhere, the
parameter input port is ignored. In this one case, it is not an error
for an input port to be unbound."

Is it still necessary?

Received on Monday, 15 December 2008 07:49:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:47 UTC