- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:52:49 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87d53v672m.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: | Norm, | | On 2/26/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote: |> / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: |> | == p:inline : why allowing containing sequence ? == |> | in my conception, p:inline should contain 1 and only one document |> | If you need to reach 2 or more, you need to wrap each around a p:inline |> | The problem to reach 0 has not yet been solved, AFAIK |> |> The ? isn't a sequence, it's a choice. So an empty p:input solves the |> 0 problem. Putting more than one element is an error. | | The problem is that *it is defined as a sequence* ! | <<A p:inline provides a sequence of documents inline>> Ah. Fixed. |> | == State of status quo ?== |> | If we didn't reach consensus on changing "<p:input port=" and |> | "<p:output port=" to "<p:input name=" and "<p:output name=", i propose |> | to vote on this issue asap |> |> I don't recall discussing that. Not to say that we didn't... |> |> Personally, I'm in favor of retaining the name "port". | | I think that now that we have the <p:pipe clearly define, we could | take a look to have @name as *everywhere* else in the spec Sure, that makes sense. I favor retaining @port on p:input/p:output because I think it makes p:pipe clearer: <p:pipe step="someName" port="somePortName"/> Saying that somePortName is the @port on a p:output seems clearer to me than saying that somePortName is the @name on a p:output. I'm not so sure about @step on p:pipe now, but ... |> Yes. We probably want the p:store/p:save component to have parameters |> like the xsl:output method='html' element. | | But does it truly mean in that perspective that *only* output="xml" | will be allowed ? That's pretty clear in the spec. From 2.2: Although some components can read and write non-XML resources, what flows between components as inputs and outputs are exclusively XML documents or sequences of XML documents. There have bee a couple of proposals floated for how to wrap non-XML stuff in XML so that it can flow through the pipe, but I don't think we have consensus to do that yet. |> Yes, try/catch is poorly specified today. | | I think it will be good to start a thread around errors and try/catch Definitely. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh XML Standards Architect Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 13:54:25 UTC