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

Re: CR draft ready for review

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:59:23 +0000
To: Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
Cc: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5b1vx56mms.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Toman_Vojtech writes:

> I agree :) Personally I don't see any reason in forcing people to always
> connect something to the primary (normal or parameter) input ports of
> compound steps. They just hang there in the space, you don't have to use
> them at all.

Hold on.  What about the following [1]:

  If no binding is provided for a primary input port, the input will
  be bound to the default readable port. It is a static error
  (err:XS0032) if no binding is provided and the default readable port
  is undefined.

I think this is as it should be.  I don't want to change it now.  I do
note that we do something similar for p:variable, p:with-option and
p:with-param, but p:for-each/p:iteration-source and
p:viewport/viewport-source don't say what happens if there is no
binding and no DRP, and the discussion of XPath context specifies an
empty document or undefined in that case.  We should probably make
this all a bit more consistent.


[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#document-inputs
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 17:00:01 UTC

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