- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:04:44 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2wsgbw1jn.fsf@nwalsh.com>
ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) writes: > Hmm. What benefit follows? If it has an inline, or an explicit > connection, doesn't matter if it's primary or not. In the (admittedly > unlikely) case where you do in fact want to compute the error output, > having it be non-primary is a pain. I can't think of any situation > where having it be primary will cause a problem. . . It leads naturally to the confusing and very rarely useful situation where the primary output of the preceding step becomes the error message. If you're using p:error, you almost always want to provide a message. Making the port non-primary will catch the error where you forget to define it. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | To enjoy yourself and make others enjoy http://nwalsh.com/ | themselves, without harming yourself or | any other; that, to my mind, is the | whole of ethics.-- Chamfort
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 17:05:59 UTC