- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:01:59 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Norman Walsh writes:
> In other words, does this paragraph:
>
> Additionally, if a compound step has no declared outputs and the
> last step in its subpipeline has an unbound primary output, then an
> implicit primary output port will be added to the compound step (and
> consequently the last step's primary output will be bound to it).
> This implicit output port has no name. It inherits the sequence
> property of the port bound to it.
>
> apply to p:declare-step?
>
> We don't say it doesn't, but I'm not sure it should.
Hmm, seems to me it would surprise people if it didn't. What downside
are you worrying about?
ht
- --
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]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFKQRiXkjnJixAXWBoRAtN2AJ4td70NhtW3xwkmglTU5IYxniWYfgCfYxy2
bif3te3St6ShJrySv52tn3Y=
=pq2P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 18:02:37 UTC