- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:46:31 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <878xp88kmw.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk> was heard to say: |> Maybe another way to look at it is that components can have 0 to n |> *named* inputs, 0 to n *named* outputs, an optional *anonymous* input, |> and an optional *anonymous* output. | | Alternatively the component definition could declare one of the | named inputs to be the "default" input, and similarly for output. Yes, if we have defaults at all, I think I like that better. It amounts to the same thing for the user, but it feels more uniform to me. Every input then has a name. If an output has more than one input, do we still allow one of them to be defaulted? <p:step name="p:xslt"> <p:input ref="document"/> <p:input name="stylesheet" ref="style"/> <p:output label="styleout"/> </p:step> vs. <p:step name="p:xslt"> <p:input name="document" ref="document"/> <p:input name="stylesheet" ref="style"/> <p:output label="styleout"/> </p:step> I think I'd prefer to make the name optional only in the case where there is a single input or output. (As I've done for the output in both cases above.) Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh XML Standards Architect Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 18:46:42 UTC