- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:56:59 -0400
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
> How about > > <para>An output port may have more than one binding: it may be > connected to more than one input port, more than one of it's > container's output ports, or both. At runtime this will result in > distinct copies of the output. > </para> Ah, "binding" vs. "connected to" again. I think that including both of them in one sequence is a deadly mix... > > Separately, I'm noodling about what to do about the overlapping > meanings of "binding" in our spec :-( After two years of re-reading the spec, I came to the following conclusion regarding the difference. Suppose you have the following dependency graph of steps (Y reads the result of X, Z reads the result of Y): X <- Y <- Z Then X is connected to Y, and Y is connected to Z. Looking from the other side, Y has a binding to X, and Z has a binding to Y. Following this logic, most of the spec seems to make sense to me :) Regards, Vojtech
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 13:57:46 UTC