- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:23:41 -0500
- 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 UTC