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

Re: Extensibility questions

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 08:07:55 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2tzh2s8ys.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| Sorry, I wasn't clear on my goal

No, I understood that goal. And I appreciate it!

| My goal was to find the hole in the spec where there is room for
| adding some additionnal feature to steps
|
| I was thinking there was a lot, but since all is interdependent at
| some point, there are few case where it still work
| Also I wanted to find out which was the error reported to the user if any

Right, but I can't see exactly what you're pressing on here:

|>  | 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.
|>  | ]]

I was hoping you could construct an example of something that you
think (a) is an extensibility point we didn't intend and (b) is
allowed by the three errors above.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Allow children to be happy in their own
http://nwalsh.com/            | way, for what better way will they ever
                              | find?--Dr. Johnson

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 12:08:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 May 2008 12:08:34 GMT