- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:02:56 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 10/5/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: > [...] > | Personnaly, I'm strongly opposed to allow to NOT bing a primary input ports > > I'm sorry, could you rephrase that, I can't quite figure out what you > mean. Sorry, I was saying that I don't want that a primary input port could stay unbounded because it has a default content > > | Apart from that, I find it a useful a not so problematic feature > | > | But It would mean that > | > | * <!-- nothing --> (defaulted content) > | * <p:input port="secondary"/> (default binding) > | * <p:input port="secondary"><p:empty/></p:input> (empty content) > | > | could give three different result from now on (Norm it was one of your > | earlier concern). > > Yes. I'd be happy to say that it *only* applies to the "initial > pipeline". > > | Furthermore, it gives us one more use case for cardinality zero-or-one > > How so? Writing email too fast, is not a good idea I was trying to say the exact opposite : may be for use case we found, that need zero-or-one, we could try to use the default content instead to propose a solution ? Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Friday, 5 October 2007 22:03:06 UTC