- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:19:10 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote: > / ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say: > | Norman Walsh writes: > |> | 5.11 > |> | > |> | I'm unhappy with a perhaps-unintended consequence of the way output > |> | ports on compound steps are handled here. Seems to me this is a > |> | perfectly good p:for-each: > |> | > |> | <p:for-each name="saveThem"> > |> | > |> | <p:output port="result"> > |> | <p:pipe step="saveThem" port="current"/> > |> | </p:output> > |> > |> That makes my brain hurt. Output ports bind to step outputs. If you > |> want that, stick in p:identity step that reads the input and produces > |> an output. > | > | Sigh -- I don't see why we should treat these specially, but I don't > | suppose it makes much difference. If no-one else cares, I'll let this > | go. > > I didn't think we *were* treating them specially. It seems to me > that allowing an output port to be bound to an input port *would be* > treating it specially. I'm confused. I'm with Henry, FWIW. From within a compound step, its inputs are *sources* and its outputs are *sinks*. A source should be able to pipe to any sink (and vice versa: a sink should be able to take any source). Disallowing an input to pipe straight to an output seems like special casing to me. Cheers, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 18:19:17 UTC