- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:49:03 +0200
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
guys/gals, isnt it late to be considering such changes at this late stage ? Jim Fuller On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: > Norm, > > On 9 Oct 2009, at 21:57, Norman Walsh wrote: >> >> Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> writes: >>> >>> So here's >>> my dumb question: the only outputs that you need to care about are the >>> ones that are connected, so couldn't a processor work out what outputs >>> a step is supposed to have based on the connections to those outputs? >> >> Could it? > > I did say it was a dumb question. There's always a disconnect between the > user's "surely it should work like..." and the implementer's "no, it has to > work like..." > > I was really thinking about explicit connections (ie not to primary ports) > directly to XProc steps. I think it's reasonable to constrain future > versions not to add primary ports to existing steps, if that helps any. > > Jeni > -- > Jeni Tennison > http://www.jenitennison.com > > >
Received on Saturday, 10 October 2009 10:49:36 UTC