New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Editorial clarification needed on p:with-input #642

xml-project opened this Issue Nov 22, 2018 · 2 comments


None yet
2 participants

xml-project commented Nov 22, 2018

Currently the specs say:

If no connection is provided for a primary input port, the input will be connected to the default readable port. It is a static error (err:XS0032) if no connection is provided and the default readable port is undefined.

It is clear that this means, that if a step type declares a primary input port, and the step's call has no p:with-input for this port and there is a DRP, then this DRP provides the binding.

Ok! But if you look at the syntax of p:with-input, the following is correct:

  <p:with-input port="source" />

If I look back on the text quoted above, here no binding for primary input port is provided, so the default connection rule is used.

Do we really mean this? From intuition I would argue, that if an author writes p:with-input, but provides no binding, she forgot something (the binding) and does not expect the DRP to be used as binding. Following this intuition, I would tend to say, that the example above should be an error.

Any opinion about this?


This comment has been minimized.


ndw commented Nov 22, 2018

I don’t object to making it an error, but I think the current rules are clear and I don’t find them confusing.


This comment has been minimized.


xml-project commented Nov 22, 2018

Ok, if this is intentional, I think we should leave it as it is. I was not sure whether this was an unpleasant consequence of the attribute short cuts for binding.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment