- From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 07:01:58 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
More than fair enough. so p:try exposes the ports to the outside so it SHOULD be able to have a name p:try/p:catch holds the "error", that's why it SHOULD be able to have a name p:choose exposes the ports to the outside, so it SHOULD be able to have name and therefore p:try/p:group holds no specific port, so it SHOULDN'T have a name p:choose/p:when holds no specific port, so it SHOULDN'T have a name p:choose/p:otherwise holds no specific port, so it SHOULDN'T have a name Mohamed On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com> writes: >> I respectfully disagree here with your reasonning : we could have said >> that we connect the "error" port on the "p:try" (the same way we >> connect the "current" port on the "p:for-each" > > Uh. Except that the error port isn't on the try, it's on the catch. > And it would be wrong to have it on the try as that would allow steps > in the group to read the error port. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh > Lead Engineer > MarkLogic Corporation > Phone: +1 413 624 6676 > www.marklogic.com -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 05:02:48 UTC