- From: Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:58:12 +0100
- To: Olivier JEULIN <olivier.jeulin@gmail.com>
- Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Using "in-memory.in" and “in-memory.out" as port names are just conventions we (Jostein and I are working on the same project) use to keep our port names consistent and readable, but other than that I agree with Florent that port names should not be involved in implicit connections. That would be too brittle and too limited IMO. Romain. On 19 févr. 2014, at 17:50, Olivier JEULIN <olivier.jeulin@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I wanted to reply Jostein > > About the naming, instead of connecting in-memory.in to in-memory.out, > you could name in/out ports "in-memory", and they would connect. > > 2014-02-19 17:33 GMT+01:00 Olivier JEULIN <olivier.jeulin@gmail.com>: >> If I understood correctly, you want to automatically connect an >> output named "A" to an input named "A"? >> >> Given that the spec v2 proposes in §2.7 >> “Change all steps with a single non-primary output to have a single >> primary output” >> could we remove the notion of primary port, and say that, by default, >> input ports connect to the first previous (preceding-sibling::*[1]) >> port of the same name? >> We can still define explicitly the binding when we need to connect to >> another port or step. > > -- > Envoyé depuis Firefox et analysé grâce à Hadoop par la NSA (via Gmail©®™) 😏 >
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 16:58:42 UTC