- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:41:54 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Norman Walsh writes: > | Third, I wonder if we can place some sensible restrictions on when > | an anonymous parameter port is implicitly declared, along the same > | lines as for inputs and outputs. So a pipeline only has an implicit > | declaration for an anonymous parameter port added if (a) there are > | no other parameter port declarations and (b) one of its contained > | steps has a parameter port. This would have the advantage of better > | error reporting when a pipeline user mistakenly passes in parameters > | rather than options. > > I suppose we could. Thoughts? Yes, I think this is OK. > | Can we use the notion of a primary parameter port, just as we have a > | primary standard port? If there's only one parameter port, that's > | the primary one; otherwise one of the parameter ports can be marked > | with primary="yes". Then we can say that the anonymous parameter set > | gets passed in to the primary parameter port. That would, at least, > | mirror the way normal inputs work. > > Sigh. Yet more concepts, but yes, that does sound like the right > answer. Yes, I can live with that too, as it actually _isn't_ a new concept, it's making the idea of 'primary' apply to both kinds of input ports, not just one. ht - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGk4yikjnJixAXWBoRAldqAKCDf00a347seqB4U+kkHge6qJ/wHACeNvxM gkvWMbn7vIoJCRzI3C+gtQo= =k1Ip -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 13:42:02 UTC