- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:50:24 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2mygkho0v.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Toman_Vojtech@emc.com writes: > So far so good. But the thing about unsupported steps is that the > processor not only does not support them, but it also does not know > their declarations - which, among other things, means that it doesn't > know what the step's input and output ports are (and which of them, if > any, are primary). This can cause problems when the processor processes > the pipeline document, establishes the running order of steps and > detects static errors. Hmm. I think perhaps the spec is unclear, but I believe the intent is that a declaration must always be present. If the processor encounters an element for which it doesn't have a declaration, then I think that's err:XS0044. My implementation, for example, implicitly imports a set of declarations for its extension steps. I wonder if its allowed to do that, or if the author is required to explicitly import that library... In any event, I believe that this pipeline can be rejected statically: <p:pipeline xmlns:p="..." xmlns:cx="..."> <cx:message message="Hi Mom"/> </p:pipeline> while this pipeline can be rejected either statically or dynamically: <p:pipeline xmlns:p="..." xmlns:cx="..."> <p:declare-step type="cx:message"> <p:input port="source"/> <p:output port="result"/> <p:option name="message" required="true"/> </p:declare-step> <cx:message message="Hi Mom"/> </p:pipeline> Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | It is so comic to hear oneself called http://nwalsh.com/ | old, even at ninety I suppose.--Alice | James
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 13:51:09 UTC