- 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