W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Connecting output ports of compound steps - inconsistency in the spec?

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:44:34 +0000
To: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
Cc: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5b7hfrjd25.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
Hash: SHA1

[anon] writes:

> Within a compound step, the declared outputs of the step can be connected to:
>   * The output port of some contained step.
>   * A fixed, inline document or sequence of documents.
>   * A document read from a URI.

> Whereas Section 5.11 (p:pipe) says the following:
> " A p:pipe that is a connection for an p:output of a compound step
> may connect to one of the readable ports of the compound step or to
> an output port on one of the compound step's contained steps. In
> other words, the output of a compound step can simply be a copy of
> one of the available inputs or it can be the output of one of its
> children.  "
> I may be interpreting the text in 2.2 incorrectly (as has happened
> to me many times before), but it seems to me that the list in 2.2
> should be updated by allowing connections to the output ports of
> some other steps (not just contained steps).

Yes, it does seem to me that something is missing from the 2.2 list,
but it's something such as

  * An input port of the step itself

I don't see any basis in 5.11 for connecting to "some other steps" --
what other steps would those be?

- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      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 from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 11:45:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:49 UTC