W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2009

[closed] Re: p:pipeline and p:declare-step

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:37:08 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2fxgj82t7.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Good catch, Mohamed. Fixed.

> In the spec the prose says :
>
> [[
> All p:pipeline pipelines have an implicit *primary input
> port<http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#dt-primary-input-port>
> * named "source" and an implicit *primary output
> port<http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#dt-primary-output-port>
> * named "result". Any input or output ports that the p:pipeline declares
> explicitly are *in addition* to those ports and may not be declared primary.
> ]]
> Nothing is said about parameters input port
>
> Few lines below you can read
> [[
>
> If a pipeline does not have a type then that pipeline cannot be invoked as a
> step.
>
> The p:pipeline element is just a simplified form of step declaration. A
> document that reads:
>
> <p:pipeline *some-attributes*>
>   *some-content*
> </p:pipeline>
>
> can be interpreted as if it read:
>
> <p:declare-step *some-attributes*>
>   <p:input port='source' primary='true'/>
>   <p:input port='parameters' kind='parameters' primary='true'/>
>   <p:output port='result' primary='true'>
>
>   *some-content*
> </p:declare-step>
>
> ]]
>
> It would be good to synchronize the prose and the example
> And it would also be good to fix the sample by adding a slash at the end of
> p:output
>
> Mohamed

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Growth for the sake of growth is the
http://nwalsh.com/            | ideology of the cancer cell.--Edward
                              | Abbey

Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 17:37:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 April 2009 17:37:50 GMT