- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:14:25 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 4/22/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: > | On 4/22/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > |> > |> Is the following intended to be legal: > > I should have said that I don't mean p:inline bindings explicitly, but > p:inline/p:document/p:pipe bindings in general. > > |> > |> <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 ? > > We could, but if it only has one output then that will be the default > for the following step, so it's not always strictly necessary. > > | 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 > > So a pipeline author can call a component but provide entirely > different, unrelated documents as output. > > Assuming the following pipe is loaded from a library: > > <p:pipeline name="ex:myPipe"> > <p:input port="source"> > <p:inline> > <foo/> > </p:inline> > </p:input> > <p:output port="result"/> > <p:identity/> > </p:pipeline> > > What is the output from this pipeline? > > <ex:myPipe> > <p:input port="source"> > <p:inline> > <bar/> > </p:inline> > </p:input> > </ex:myPipe> The output is <bar/>, because this use case, is the "default input" one. This is a very useful use case, for auxiliary inputs which could be "overloaded" by the user 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 16:14:35 UTC