- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 15:34:00 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: > > |> | Following is a an example for 1) > |> | > |> | 1) for example : p:count, with xmlns:my="http://my.site.com/ns/" > |> | > |> | a) Is this valid ? > |> | <p:count my:option="myvalue"/> > |> > |> Yes, but my:option is an extension attribute, not an option. > | > | Am I allowed to change the behaviour of step with that extension attribute ? > > Presumably that's the point of adding it. However, > > The presence of an extension attribute must not cause the > connections between steps to differ from the connections that would > arise in the absence of the attribute. They must not cause the > processor to fail to signal an error that would be signalled in the > absence of the attribute. > > So it can't manufacture new connections nor can it allow things that > would otherwise be an error. I'm open to adding more constraints. I think we will need to take a look at... > > > |> | <p:count> > |> | <p:with-option name="my:option" select="'myvalue'"/> > |> | </p:count> > |> > |> Nope. > | > | Yeah ! I do think the same, but don't see clearly where it is not > | allowed in the spec ... > > That use of p:count does not match the signature of p:count. > > [Definition: A step matches its signature if and only if it > specifies an input for each declared input, it specifies no inputs > that are not declared, it specifies an option for each option that > is declared to be required, and it specifies no options that are > not declared.] In other words, every input and required option must > be specified and only inputs and options that are declared may be > specified. Options that aren't required do not have to be > specified. Thanks for the pointer ! Does it mean that there is no constraint on parameters or outputs ? > > > |> | c) ..or this ? > |> | <p:count> > |> | <p:pipeinfo> > |> | <p:with-option name="my:option" select="'myvalue'"/> > |> | </p:pipeinfo> > |> | </p:count> > |> > |> That's legal. But it doesn't have any defined semantics. > | > | Same as above, am I allowed to change the behaviour of step with that > | p:pipeinfo ? > > I don't think we say at the moment, but we probably should. Probably 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 Monday, 12 May 2008 13:34:39 UTC