- From: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:00:24 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Bleh ! indeed ! On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > > The comment in the otherwise suggests that the preceding p:when > statements have an output named result. This is partially supported > by section 2.3: > > Additionally, if a compound step has no declared outputs and the > last step in its subpipeline has an unbound primary output, then an > implicit primary output port will be added to the compound step (and > consequently the last step's primary output will be bound to it). > This implicit output port has no name. It inherits the sequence > property of the port bound to it. > > Except that 2.3 says the implicit output port has no name. > > Bleh. > > Why does it have no name ? Couldn't we just keep the name of the primary output port ? Xmlizer
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 08:01:04 UTC