- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:36:59 -0500
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
> / Toman_Vojtech@emc.com was heard to say: > | 1. Section 4.7.1 (options). From the schema (rng) it looks like the > | shortcut form can only be used for atomic steps and "other" > compound > | steps. Why isn't it possible to use the shortcut form also > on built-in > | compound steps (such as for-each or group) which can > specify options > | in the "long" form? > > I think the shortcut form only makes sense on atomic steps > where there's a declaration for the option. On compound > steps, allowing the shortcut form would be both a declaration > and a binding and so there'd be no way to tell if there was a > typo or something. But isn't it the same also with the long option form? I mean, it is also a declaration and a binding. > | 5.Section 4.1 (p:pipeline): "All p:pipeline pipelines have > an implicit > | primary input port named "source' and an implicit primary > output port > | named "result". Any input or output ports that the > p:pipeline declares > | explicitly are in addition to those ports and may not be declared > | primary." > | > | So, is it allowed to explicitly specify the implicit input/output > | ports inside p:pipeline? If so, is it possible to redefine their > | properties (primary, sequence)? Is the following permitted? > | > | <p:pipeline> > | <p:input port="source" sequence="false"/> > | <p:output port="result" primary="false"/> > | <p:output port="result2" primary="true"/> > | ... > | </p:pipeline> > > No. The implicit declarations of source/result cannot be > repeated or changed. Of course, you can use p:declare-step if > you want to have different values. Now I am really confused. Does the specification mention this possibility (declaring a pipeline with different primary input/output properties)? I also thought it was not possible to declare different names than "source" and "result" for primary pipeline input/output ports in p:declare-step (the "source" and "result" strings seem to be quite hard-coded in section 4.1 - p:pipeline), but after reading section 5.8.2 (declaring pipelines) again, I am not that sure any more. It looks to me now that I am free to declare any primary input/output ports on a pipeline... Regards, Vojtech -- Vojtech Toman Principal Software Engineer EMC Corporation Aert van Nesstraat 45 3012 CA Rotterdam The Netherlands Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 08:33:33 UTC