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 16:01:00 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2mymvthqb.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
|>  | 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?
| So it means that if I want to add an alternate output to a step, I can do that
| Let's say for example for p:delete, add a "alternate" output for example,
| and then in the following step connect its input to alternate
| Where will it fail, if it does ?

You can't change the declaration for a step in the XProc namespace, so
you can't add another output. Adding another output would change the
inputs and outputs, so you aren't allowed to do that with an extension

|>  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.
| Well, if I'm correct, it is said in the spec that
| [[
| It is a static error (err:XS0034) if the specified port is not a
| parameter input port or if no port is specified and the step does not
| have a primary parameter input port.
| ]]
| which means that we can bind a parameter port named "foo" since there
| is no equivalent of the err:XS0012 for input parameters
| [[
| it is a static error (err:XS0012) if the port given does not match the
| name of an input port specified in the step's declaration.
| ]]

Sorry, I don't follow. What do you think you can do?

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The most universal quality is
http://nwalsh.com/            | diversity.-- Montaigne

Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 20:01:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:46 UTC