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

[closed] Re: <input> for <pipeline>

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:12:47 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2wsqjay00.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Overtaken by events, if nothing else, I believe.

/ Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk> was heard to say:
| 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?
|
| -- Richard

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Knowledge, sense, honesty, learning,
http://nwalsh.com/            | good behavior are the chief things
                              | towards making a man's fortune, next to
                              | interest and opportunity.

Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2008 14:09:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 January 2008 14:09:19 GMT