W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > April 2008

a few comments on latest draft

From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:09:51 +0200
Message-ID: <a0ad8ffe0804151209i2918166bu732b0fcb66a69adc@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

------------------------

Example 3. A validate and transform pipeline

propose highlighting the use of an Optional step (p:validate-with-xml-schema)

------------------------

should we explicitly define primary outputs in Standard and Optional steps ?

------------------------

in section 1 Introduction

'The pipeline document determines how the steps are connected together
inside the pipeline. How inputs are connected to XML documents outside
the pipeline is implementation-defined. How pipeline outputs are
connected to XML documents outside the pipeline is
implementation-defined.'

do we want to delineate between the 'outside world' e.g. the top level
pipeline versus a pipeline that is executing in the context of a
nested pipeline ?

------------------------

in section 2 Pipeline Concepts

'A pipeline must behave as if it evaluated each step each time it occurs.'

is it more valid to say  memoisation is not allowed ... or is this too
constraining ?

what is the primary scenario where this applies ?

------------------------

in section 1 it says

'There are two kinds of steps: atomic steps and compound steps.'

in section 2.1 Steps

'There are three kinds of steps: atomic, compound, and multi-container.'

I propose syncing these

------------------------

in section 2.1.1 Step names

I am a unsure about the need to specifically prescribe the manufactured format
I propose to keep existing text but frame it as an 'example'.

------------------------

I must have lost the thread on this discussion but what happens when

<p:declare-step
  xpath-version? = string>

and a pipelines xpath-version

have different values ... is this a static error ? just need a pointer here

------------------------

probably need to expand the definition of pfx:user-pipeline ... somewhere

also, shouldn't p:standard-step be pfx:atomic-step ?

------------------------

more comments coming ;)

cheers, Jim Fuller
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2008 19:10:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 April 2008 19:10:25 GMT