- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:56:41 -0400
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
> 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"/> > <p:identity/> > </p:declare-step> > > And I can call bar: > > <p:declare-step type="px:my-atomic-step" name="bar"> > <p:input port="source"/> > <p:output port="result"/> > </p:declare-step> > > 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"/> > </p:declare-step> > > But I can't call p:add-attribute? The *only* difference is that > p:add-attribute doesn't have a name. > Sorry if I am still missing something, but again: why do you need a name if you know the type? I think that you can remove the @name attributes from px:my-step, px:my-atomic-step and px:add-attribute and nothing should change; you should be able to run them with no problems (like p:add-attributes)... The step types are always unique, so the type is all you need, IMHO. Regards, Vojtech Regards, Vojtech
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 14:57:34 UTC