- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:36:30 +0100 (BST)
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> |> I've already encountered the problem that the harness I wrote for > |> running test pipelines can't tell what inputs and outputs to expect > |> for the pipeline by simply inspecting it. > | Could this be solved by specifying algorithms for pipeline inspections > | procedures, and publish them as a WG Note, with accompanying > | pseudo-code/real-code implementation, instead of having to wander > | through XProc's spec prose? > Because I feel like pushing back a little bit on our decision to allow > defaulted pipeline inputs and outputs, I'm going to start by saying > "no". :-) Defaulting pipeline inputs and outputs makes a big difference to the terseness of simple pipelines. I'd prefer to find a solution that still allows that terseness. Henry suggests only allowing such defaulting on top-level pipelines: if you're writing a library, a bit of verboseness is less annoying. And the problem I described only arises for pipelines called by name. There's still a problem that top-level pipelines can call themselves recursively, but I'd like to try and find a solution before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. -- Richard
Received on Monday, 1 October 2007 20:37:33 UTC