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

Re: Comments on Editor's Draft 9 January 2008

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:46:18 +0000
To: Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
Cc: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bir20r0md.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Toman_Vojtech writes:

> 1. Section 4.7.1 (options). From the schema (rng) it looks like the
> shortcut form can only be used for atomic steps and "other" compound
> steps. Why isn't it possible to use the shortcut form also on built-in
> compound steps (such as for-each or group) which can specify options in
> the "long" form?

Because there are no pre-declared options for the built-in compound
steps, so there's no way to add them to the syntax.  Option usage for
compound steps is pretty marginal in any case -- it's only allowed for
the case where it makes sense to bind an option to a value once for
use in several places within a subpipeline. . .

> 5.Section 4.1 (p:pipeline): "All p:pipeline pipelines have an implicit
> primary input port named "source' and an implicit primary output port
> named "result". Any input or output ports that the p:pipeline declares
> explicitly are in addition to those ports and may not be declared
> primary."
> So, is it allowed to explicitly specify the implicit input/output ports
> inside p:pipeline? If so, is it possible to redefine their properties
> (primary, sequence)? Is the following permitted?


> <p:pipeline>
>   <p:input port="source" sequence="false"/>
>   <p:output port="result" primary="false"/>
>   <p:output port="result2" primary="true"/>
>   ...
> </p:pipeline>


> 6. Section 4.1 (p:pipeline). Pipelines can no longer specify the "name"
> attribute. How does that work together with section 3.2 (Scoping of
> Names). Is the sentence "All the step types in a pipeline must have
> unique names: it is a static error (err:XS0036) if any step type name is
> built-in and/or declared or defined more than once in the same scope."
> still valid?

Yes -- we should probably clarify that in the case of p:pipeline, this
is trivially true since there can never be two in the same scope.

Actually, to make _that_ true we need to say something about what
happens if you import a p:pipeline document which has no 'type'. . .

- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 12:46:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:25 UTC