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

RE: Questions + comments on XProc WD 14 December 2007

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:23:41 -0500
Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC78709880B1E@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>

> / Toman_Vojtech@emc.com was heard to say:
> | 3. The spec allows recursive invocations of pipelines. Is the 
> | following example valid (only name specified, no type 
> | informationprovided)?
> |
> | <p:pipeline name="test"> <test>...</test> </p:pipeline>
> |
> | Or do I have to use the "type" attribute here?
> |
> | <p:pipeline type="test:mypipeline" 
> xmlns:test="http://www.test.com">  
> | <test:mypipeline>...</test:mypipeline> </p:pipeline>
> |
> | I think the spec is not very clear on this topic.
> 
> I think this has also been overtaken by events.

I am not so sure. Are the following (reursive) pipelines legal?

<p:pipeline type="test:mypipeline" xmlns:test="http://www.test.com">
  <test:mypipeline>...</test:mypipeline>
</p:pipeline>

and:

<p:pipeline type="mypipeline">
  <mypipeline>...</mypipeline>
</p:pipeline>

My feeling is that the second pipeline should not be legal. The
specification does demand that the value of "type" must be in a nonempty
namespace (compare to p:declare-step), but I think that if one wants to
write recursive pipelines, a non-local type has to be used.

> | 14. The text for dynamic error err:XD0014 should be more 
> generic so it 
> | is meaningful both for c:parameter and c:parameter-set
> 
> You don't think it's sufficient to have slightly different 
> messages in the two cases?

It's fine with me.

--
Vojtech Toman
Principal Software Engineer
EMC Corporation

Aert van Nesstraat 45
3012 CA Rotterdam
The Netherlands

Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 08:20:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 January 2008 08:20:53 GMT