RE: CR draft ready for review

> > Ah, so it is about something connecting to the parameter 
> input port, not
> > that the port must be connected to something. But I thought 
> that inside
> > a compound step, you don't have to connect anything to the declared
> > input steps. Only when you *use* the step, you have to 
> connect its input
> > ports to something... I thought that pipelines like the 
> following would
> > run just fine (the compound step just ignores any data/parameters it
> > gets):
> >
> > <p:declare-step ...>
> >   <p:input port="source" primary="true"/>
> >   <p:input port="another-source"/>
> >   <p:input port="params" kind="parameter"/>
> >   <p:output port="result"/>
> >   <p:identity>
> >     <p:input port="source"><p:document href="..."/></p:inline>
> >   </p:identity>
> > </p:declare-step/>
> >
> > Sorry, I am probaly just under attack of my recurring 
> confusion about
> > what "connected" and "binding" actually means in XProc...
> 
> To my surprise, I think you're right (I'm not surprised you were
> right, I'm surprised about the spec :-). No where in our spec does it
> say that *input* ports have to be bound. I wonder if it should? I
> think probably not. I wonder if it used to, or if I just imagined that
> it did? In any event, unless we change the spec to say that (primary)
> input ports must be bound, I think we can drop that paragraph about
> automatic binding to p:sink for parameter input ports on p:pipeline
> that aren't used.
> 

I agree :) Personally I don't see any reason in forcing people to always
connect something to the primary (normal or parameter) input ports of
compound steps. They just hang there in the space, you don't have to use
them at all.

Vojtech

Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 13:45:15 UTC