- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:38:49 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <546c6c1c0704220838k63fc083as123a1fce663e0925@mail.gmail.com>
On 4/22/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > > Is the following intended to be legal: > > <p:group> > <p:output port="output"> > <p:inline> > <doc/> > </p:inline> > </p:output> > </p:group> Should we add the constraint that if p:outputs are declared that p:group must have a name ? What about this? > > <p:group> > <p:output port="output"> > <p:pipe step="foo" port="result"/> > <p:inline> > <doc/> > </p:inline> > </p:output> > > <p:load name="foo"> > <p:option name="href" select="'http://example.com/xml/doc.xml"/> > </p:load> > </p:group> > > What about this? It is not only perfectly valid but a real use case <p:identity> > <p:input port="source"> > <p:inline> > <doc/> > </p:inline> > </p:input> > <p:output port="result"> > <p:inline> > <doc/> > </p:inline> > </p:output> > </p:identity> This one, that I would call "fixed output" is perfectly valid. Anyway, whatever the inline input is, it is valid Be seeing you, > norm Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Sunday, 22 April 2007 15:38:54 UTC