- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 15:37:02 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Norman Walsh writes:
> Is the following intended to be legal:
>
> <p:group>
> <p:output port="output">
> <p:inline>
> <doc/>
> </p:inline>
> </p:output>
> </p:group>
Sure -- we've said before, it's possible for compound steps to have
static outputs.
> What about this?
>
> <p:group>
> <p:output port="output">
> <p:pipe step="foo" port="result"/>
> <p:inline>
> <doc/>
> </p:inline>
> </p:output>
>
> <p:load name="foo">
> <p:option name="href" select="'http://example.com/xml/doc.xml"/>
> </p:load>
> </p:group>
Sure -- we allow for multiple bindings, and say "[I]f more than one
binding is provided, then the specified sequence of documents is made
available on that port."
> What about this?
>
> <p:identity>
> <p:input port="source">
> <p:inline>
> <doc/>
> </p:inline>
> </p:input>
> <p:output port="result">
> <p:inline>
> <doc/>
> </p:inline>
> </p:output>
> </p:identity>
No, only compound steps can bind outputs. The syntax should rule this
out -- I still think we should distinguish Other Atomic Steps from
Other Compound Steps in section 4.7.
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)
iD8DBQFGOfOOkjnJixAXWBoRAiiBAJwK2V5a7aqN2TTBeVEWF2C755cuJwCeLz3W
K3jOWugEpFg3bOUSFpQGZ0o=
=6Xio
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2007 14:37:07 UTC