Re: viewport

On Nov 9, 2007 4:01 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> / Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say:
> [...]
> | |     Is a viewport naturally a subpipeline?
> |
> | I'm not sure what you mean. A p:viewport is a compound step. The p:viewport
> | in Example 4.3.2 contains a subpipeline that consists of a single p:insert
> | step. Where is the conflict?
> |
> | |     Is it envisaged that the subpipeline, within a viewport, should
> | | encapsulated.... e.g. should there be a
> | |
> | | (p:for-each|p:viewport|p:choose|p:group|p:try|pfx:other-step|p:documentation|ipfx:ignored)*
> | |
> | | element? taking the 4.3.2 example
> |
> | A p:insert is a pfx:other-step :-)
>
> Are you satisfied by this answer?

yes, thank you.

J