- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:12:08 +0100 (BST)
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> Second, I don't want pipeline authors to have to know which ports are > default inputs and which are not. The current rule is very clear, any > unbound input port is bound to the default input port. I think this is prone to error. If you forget to connect an input, it won't fail, but you will get the wrong document. I think omitting inputs should only work for "natural" flows, where the steps have an obvious main input and output. > Changing that rule to something like "Unbound default > input ports are bound to the default input port while unbound > non-default input ports are bound to the empty sequence" seems like a > real step backwards in usability. I want unbound non-default inputs to be an error. Consider (as usual) unix pipelines: the | symbol only connects up the default input and output (stdin and stdout). If your program needs input on file descriptor 3 and it's not connected, it will get an error. -- Richard
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 14:12:18 UTC