- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:30:17 -0400
- To: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87645ympkm.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say: | On 6/8/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: |> / James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say: |> | 5.5 p:output Element |> | |> | p:output can contain a p:document which in turn is defined as 'A |> | p:document reads an XML document from a URI.'....is this an oversight |> | of some sort? Is there any related error condition for this type of |> | scenario? |> |> The construction |> |> <p:output port="foo"> |> <p:document href="someURI"/> |> </p:output> |> |> causes the content of someURI to appear on the output port "foo". I |> expect it to be very, very uncommon. Used mostly, if ever, in p:catch |> steps to produce constant error output. | | yes, but from a users point I would argue that expected behavior from | such a construction would be 'save the output to anyURI'....willing to | bet a pint that this will become a very common FAQ indeed. Indeed. Actually, I think that our very recent decision to forbid completely empty compound steps removes all the practical value in allowing p:document inside p:output so I think I'm going to argue that we remove it. It used to be the case that you could imagine saying: ... <p:catch> <p:output port="result"> <p:document href="someURI"/> </p:output> </p:catch> But that's not legal anymore so I don't think there's any value in having p:document or p:inline in p:output. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Old and young, we are all on our last http://nwalsh.com/ | cruise.--Robert Louis Stevenson
Received on Friday, 8 June 2007 15:30:31 UTC