- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:46:52 +0000 (GMT)
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson), Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> > [Delete this:] > > If a compound step has no declared outputs and the last step in > > its subpipeline has an unbound primary output, then an implicit > > primary output port (named “result”) will be added to the > > compound step (and consequently the last step's primary output > > will be bound to it). > I'm not at all happy losing output defaulting for _all_ compound > steps! That's not what we agreed at the f2f, IIRC. We ruled that out a few weeks ago during a telcon. It's only the case for pipelines themselves that was still in question. There's still the issue of giving the defaulted output an unusable name, e.g. "!result". -- Richard
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 15:46:54 UTC