- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:12:40 +0100
- To: Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
- Cc: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Toman_Vojtech writes: > If we add a primary output port to p:error, we will have to decide > whether it produces sequences (possible problems with other subpipelines > whose outputs *don't* produce sequences), or not (possible problems ith > other subpipelines whose outputs *do* produce sequences). Yeah, I thought about that but didn't say anything, because it depressed me :-( I wonder if we should reconsider the exact nature of the constraint on outputs across subpipelines in choose and try. Since we allow sequence-out->single-in connections, couldn't we allow both sequence-out and single-out in choose/try subpipes, with the implicit casting of the single-outs to sequence-out iff any branch has an explicit sequence-out? As far as I can see this would not change the behaviour of any currently-allowed pipeline, and it would, together with making the primary output of p:error a sequence-out port (always 0-length), would solve the problem. Surely the 90% case for p:error will be in a branch of a choose or try, so it is worth fixing this. . . ht - -- Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFJ7Y4IkjnJixAXWBoRAtG2AJ9r4D3uc8TYBURb9G0DFVnVwTOZZQCffh6h Xb7sXW9R75xt8untRMyS7fA= =ik15 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 09:13:27 UTC