- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:57:16 -0500
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Norm, I think you should update. What you have is an old version of the test that was indeed incorrect. I checked another version some days after I checked the initial version. Regards, Vojtech > -----Original Message----- > From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Norman Walsh > Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:56 PM > To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > Subject: Testin versioning-002 > > Vojtech, > > I think you wrote this as a versioning test: > > <p:declare-step version="2.0"> > <p:output port="result"/> > > <p:identity name="id1"> > <p:input port="source"> > <p:inline> > <doc1/> > </p:inline> > </p:input> > <p:input port="new-input-port"> > <p:pipe step="id2" port="new-output-port"/> > </p:input> > </p:identity> > > <p:identity name="id2"> > <p:input port="source"> > <p:inline> > <doc2/> > </p:inline> > </p:input> > </p:identity> > > <p:identity/> > > </p:declare-step> > > The intent was to test that the binding would participate in the > dependency graph, forcing id2 to run before id1. > > The problem is that for the purpose of default bindings, the document > order of the steps is what counts. In this example, id1 has an unbound > primary output port (because id2 doesn't read it.) > > I've "fixed" the test by making the last binding explicit. Arguably, > this changes the test so that it no longer tests what you intended, > but I can't think of an easy way to test what you intended right > now... > > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | People often say that this or that > http://nwalsh.com/ | person has not yet found himself. But > | the self is not something one > finds, it > | is something one > creates.--Thomas Szasz >
Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 06:58:01 UTC