- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:45:06 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
I guess my point is that we can declare a p:group in terms of a reusable p:declare-step e.g. <p:declare-step type="my:group"> <p:output port="result"/> </p:declare-step> wouldn't this achieve the same exact behavior ? cheers, Jim On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> writes: >> it occurred to me that p:group is almost like p:declare-step and more >> of a syntax shortcut along the lines of p:pipeline ... should we not >> frame it in these terms within the spec ? > > It really doesn't feel that way to me. The most significant features of > a p:declare-step to me are the fact that it can declare a type that can > be called as an atomic step and it can have arbitrar inputs and outputs. > > A p:group can't have declared inputs and can't declare a type. > > I guess if you think of p:group as a semantic-free wrapper and > p:declare-step as an extension of p:group that adds inputs and > semantics, I can sort of see where you're coming from, but it doesn't > feel natural to me. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | As a general rule, the most successful > http://nwalsh.com/ | man in life is the man who has the best > | information.--Benjamin Disraeli >
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 06:45:47 UTC