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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Resolve open questions in p:try #653

merged 2 commits into from Dec 2, 2018


None yet
2 participants

ndw commented Dec 1, 2018

Close #639

  1. The section states, that the output ports of a p:try are the union of all declared output ports of the alternative subpipelines. What are the output ports of a p:try if no alternative declares an output port?

The implicit output if there is one; it has no outputs if there are none. I think I've clarified the implicit case. I don't think we need to say anything about the case where there are no outputs, but let me know if you think it's still unclear.

  1. The example in p:try still has a p:group child.

That's not wrong, you know 馃槃 . But I fixed it.

  1. It is not said what happens, if two alternative subpipelines declare an output port with the same name but different values for @content-types. I think the answer should be, that the output port on the p:try is a union of these content-types.

I agree. Done.

  1. It is state that " if any subpipeline has a primary output port, even implicitly, every subpipeline must have exactly the same primary output port." I think we need to introduce a static error if this rule is violated.


  1. (Related to non-step wrappers): Compound steps like p:group or p:for-each get an implicitly declared (unnamed) output port. The example suggests that this is also true for the initial subpipeline and p:catch, but is said nowhere.

I finessed that up in the Section 5.

I also made corresponding changes to p:choose for points 1, 3, and 4.

ndw added some commits Dec 1, 2018

@ndw ndw requested review from xml-project, eriksiegel and gimsieke Dec 2, 2018


Great. Thank you!

@ndw ndw merged commit cffbd31 into xproc:master Dec 2, 2018

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed

@ndw ndw deleted the ndw:iss-639 branch Dec 2, 2018

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