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: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:49:59 -0500
Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC787098813E4@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>

> The p:pipeline element is just syntactic sugar at this point 
> for a particular p:declare-step. I think the type attribute 
> on p:pipeline inherits the constraints given on 
> p:declare-step (though the spec is not clear on that point).
> Since the type must be in a non-null namespace, and since we 
> interpret all unqualified QName values as being in the 
> null-namespace, I think it does follow that the second 
> example above is not valid.

Actually, that was my question. It wasn't clear to me whether the value
of the type attribute of p:pipeline must be in a non-null namespace
(similar to p:declare-step). Section 4.1 does not say that - but I just
read the last couple of sentences in that section where the
transformation from p:pipeline to p:declare-step is described, and it
follows from there that type must be in a non-null namespace... So I
guess it's clear.


Vojtech Toman
Principal Software Engineer
EMC Corporation

Aert van Nesstraat 45
3012 CA Rotterdam
The Netherlands

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 07:46:14 UTC

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