W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Names for p:* steps

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:36:18 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m263ptm80t.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> writes:

> Sorry for the comparison, but you remind me someone 10 years ago,
> asking me why we can't execute any Java class that was in the JDK
> I still think that declare step is declaring abstract model of the step


We agree that I can call foo, right:

  <p:declare-step type="px:my-step" name="foo">
    <p:input port="source"/>
    <p:output port="result"/>

And I can call bar:

  <p:declare-step type="px:my-atomic-step" name="bar">
    <p:input port="source"/>
    <p:output port="result"/>

And I could call baz:

  <p:declare-step type="px:add-attribute" name="baz">
    <p:input port="source"/>
    <p:output port="result"/>
    <p:option name="match" required="true"/>
    <p:option name="attribute-name" required="true"/>
    <p:option name="attribute-value" required="true"/>

But I can't call p:add-attribute? The *only* difference is that
p:add-attribute doesn't have a name.

Anyway, we don't need to do anything so I'm not worried about it.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If brute force doesn't work, maybe
http://nwalsh.com/            | you're not using enough brute force.

Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 14:37:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:41:40 UTC