- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:59:23 +0000
- To: Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
- Cc: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Toman_Vojtech writes:
> 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.
Hold on. What about the following [1]:
If no binding is provided for a primary input port, the input will
be bound to the default readable port. It is a static error
(err:XS0032) if no binding is provided and the default readable port
is undefined.
I think this is as it should be. I don't want to change it now. I do
note that we do something similar for p:variable, p:with-option and
p:with-param, but p:for-each/p:iteration-source and
p:viewport/viewport-source don't say what happens if there is no
binding and no DRP, and the discussion of XPath context specifies an
empty document or undefined in that case. We should probably make
this all a bit more consistent.
ht
[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#document-inputs
- --
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFJJujrkjnJixAXWBoRAtvkAJ9r9CNfrQ3kxSZJ4gdfbV1Z8lQ6vQCfSSpo
39/s1AJug0xJXTMdh4Ad7pU=
=4+jP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 17:00:01 UTC