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

Re: Implicit outputs

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
Message-ID: <f5by6ri96co.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>
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?

- -- 
       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 Tuesday, 23 June 2009 18:02:37 UTC

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