- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:14:21 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 3/28/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote: > / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: > | On 3/28/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote: > |> I suggest that we rename 'join-sequences' to simply 'join'. > |> > |> I propose 'split' > |> > |> <p:declare-step type="p:split"> > |> <p:input port="source" sequence="yes"/> > |> <p:output port="*"/> > |> </p:declare-step> > | > | I'm a little bit doubtful about how you will use this component ? > | You have to know in advance how many element there is in the sequence, isn'it ? > > Brain cramp on my part. This isn't the opposite of join, I guess. > > It's more like identity. It produces a copy of its input on each of its > outputs. Hum...it's a tee with potentially more than two ok...split is not sufficiently clear, from this point of vue What about p:copy ? But...do we really need it ? Why not just have multiple inputs referring to a single output ? > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh > XML Standards Architect > Sun Microsystems, Inc. > > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2007 13:14:38 UTC