W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > September 2008

Re: Do pipelines have ports?

From: James Garriss <james@garriss.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:37:02 -0400
To: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C4F9314E.886%james@garriss.org>
I agree that one can get there indirectly.  And I did.  But the fact that I
had to wrestle with this suggests that (maybe) it¹s not as clear as it could
be.  Perhaps an explicit statement that pipelines also have ports would be
good.  I don¹t know.

James Garriss
http://garriss.blogspot.com




From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:30:15 -0400
To: James Garriss <james@garriss.org>
Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Do pipelines have ports?
Resent-From: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:30:57 +0000

James Garriss <james@garriss.org> writes:

> The closest thing I have found is this, an indirect reference in section 2:
> A pipeline is a set of connected steps, with outputs of one step flowing
> into inputs of another.] A pipeline is itself a step.

I was hoping it was less indirect:

[Definition: An atomic step is a step...]
[Definition: A compound step is a step...]

And a pipeline is a compound step, so by extension...

Does that help?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Never contend with a man who has
http://nwalsh.com/            | nothing to lose.-- Gracián
Received on Friday, 19 September 2008 14:37:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 19 September 2008 14:37:47 GMT