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

Re: Extensibility questions

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:44:41 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2k5hz9xba.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
|>  That use of p:count does not match the signature of p:count.
|>
|>    [Definition: A step matches its signature if and only if it
|>    specifies an input for each declared input, it specifies no inputs
|>    that are not declared, it specifies an option for each option that
|>    is declared to be required, and it specifies no options that are
|>    not declared.] In other words, every input and required option must
|>    be specified and only inputs and options that are declared may be
|>    specified. Options that aren't required do not have to be
|>    specified.
|
| Thanks for the pointer !
| Does it mean that there is no constraint on parameters or outputs ?

You don't get to specify outputs when you call an atomic step, so they
aren't really relevant are they?

There are no constraints on paramters, beyond the fact that you can
only specify them on a step that has (at least one) parameter input
port.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | He that shuns trifles must shun the
http://nwalsh.com/            | world.--George Chapman

Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 18:45:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 12 May 2008 18:45:17 GMT