- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:12:53 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Henry S. Thompson wrote: > Jeni Tennison writes: >> Richard & Henry wrote: >>> The default input of a step is bound to the default readable port if >>> it is not otherwise bound; >>> Non-default inputs are only bound to the default readable port if >>> you call for that to happen by writing >>> <p:input port="not-the-default-input-port"/> >> The other option would be to say that all inputs are bound to the >> default readable port if they're not explicitly bound, such that >> >> <p:pipeline> >> <p:xslt1 /> >> </p:pipeline> >> >> accepts an XSLT stylesheet input and runs it on itself (this is >> actually something I do quite a lot). >> >> It would make the defaulting story slightly easier to specify, since >> an omitted input would *always* be equivalent to an empty <p:input> >> element for that port. >> >> Is there any reason not to do that? > > Yes. Consider > > <p:pipeline> > <p:validate-xml-schema/> > <p:pipeline> > > I want that to validate based on what it finds in the document, not > try to use it as a schema to validate itself. Ah right, so you expect non-default <p:input>s that are unbound to default to an empty sequence. (And therefore generate a (static) error if they're not declared to accept a sequence.) I don't violently object to that; it just wasn't specified in the proposal. For the record, I think it would be worthwhile for the spec to note that steps declared with <p:declare-step> *don't* have any inputs or outputs auto-declared. >> Also, I'm assuming that the default readable port after a given step >> would be the default output of the previous step (in document order)? > > Yes, that's already true. So it is. Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 20:13:03 UTC