• From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
• To: "Brendan Macmillan" <melbourne.research@g...>
• Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 14:57:34 +0200

oops, I noticed that this mail kept getting cc'ed the questions about
the specification list at w3c, bad form I suppose so I've just sent
this to remove it from the thread in case anyone has automated reply
all.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

On 4/7/07, bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@g...> wrote:
> sorry, I should have put it in there earlier for the reference
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xproc/
>
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen
>
> On 4/7/07, Brendan Macmillan <melbourne.research@g...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Not an answer to bryan's XML Pipeline question, but I'm interested in
> > the syntax the Working Draft spec uses for specifying its grammar...
> > it seems simple and intuitive though I haven't seen it written about
> > before.
> >
> > > <p:output
> > >   port = NCName
> > >   sequence? = yes|no
> > >   default? = yes|no>
> > >    (p:pipe |
> > >     p:document |
> > >     p:inline)*
> > > </p:output>
> >
> > I couldn't find any info on the syntax itself in the WS spec - does
> > anyone have any pointers about it, please?
> >
> > many thanks,
> > Brendan Macmillan
> >
>

• References:
  • xproc http output ports? also, a good list for xproc discussion?
    • From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
  • Re: xproc http output ports? also, a good list for xproc discussion?
    • From: "Brendan Macmillan" <melbourne.research@g...>
  • Re: xproc http output ports? also, a good list for xproc discussion?
    • From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>