- From: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:05:06 -0500
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Hi Alex, Why can't you use the following? <p:input port="parameters"> <p:empty/> </p:input> But I agree that that may still be annoying to write. The weird thing is that we already do default to the empty sequence for non-primary parameter input ports, but not for primary parameter input ports: "If no explicit connection is provided for a primary parameter input port, then the port will be connected to the primary parameter input port of the pipeline which contains the step. If no connection is provided for a parameter input port other than the primary parameter input port, then the port will be connected to an empty sequence of documents." I wonder why. Regards, Vojtech -- Vojtech Toman Consultant Software Engineer EMC | Information Intelligence Group vojtech.toman@emc.com http://developer.emc.com/xmltech > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Milowski [mailto:alex@milowski.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 4:15 AM > To: XProc WG > Subject: V.next: empty parameters > > If I could somehow never write this again: > > <p:input port="parameters"> > <p:inline><c:param-set/></p:inline> > </p:input> > > life would be much, much better. > > No parameters should somehow default to an empty set binding. > > -- > --Alex Milowski > "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of > the > inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language > considered." > > Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics >
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 07:06:09 UTC