Re: Henry's proposed syntax change

/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh writes:
|
|> | So a pipeline with a single input and output needs no port
|> | declarations.
|>
|> Isn't this conflating two things? Couldn't we equally say that
|>
|> <p:pipeline ...attrs...>
|>   ...content...
|> </p:pipeline>
|>
|> is equivalent to
|>
|> <p:declare-step ...attrs...>
|>   ...content...
|> </p:declare-step>
|>
|> and (continue to) require that all the inputs and outputs on a
|> p:pipeline must be declared.
|
| We could, but I think we should take advantage of the opportunity to
| keep p:pipeline as simple as possible and _not_ have that requirement.

Quelle surprise. :-)

I probably just worry too much. To my mind, the fact that

  <p:pipeline>
    <p:xslt>
      ...

has an input and an output port is decidedly non-obvious.
The fact that

  <p:pipeline>
    <p:input port="stuff"/>
    <p:xslt>
      ...

has *two* input ports is downright counter-intuitive.

But I'm sure I'd get used to it.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | All of us are creatures of a day; the
http://nwalsh.com/            | rememberer and the remembered
                              | alike.--Marcus Aurelius