- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:51:17 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Norman Walsh writes: > / ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say: > | 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. > > How do you expect this to work? I assume that the 'source' port is the > default input, so it gets bound to the pipeline's implicit default > input, but it seems to me that the 'schema' port is not the default > and is not bound to the default input port, in which case it's an > unbound input port and that's an error. Hmm. I guess I was assuming, probably without justification, that an unbound sequence input wasn't a problem. . . This makes me wonder if the difference between [0,unbounded) and [1,unbounded) input signatures might be useful after all. . . 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) iD8DBQFGf9ZlkjnJixAXWBoRAkoOAJ4ncGia9sYr8CeJPq04Kak3Zle9LQCdEZmr F9jIL6sL7BsPl1fv2cOcu4w= =9rnz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 14:51:28 UTC