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

Re: a comment on p:declare-step and p:pipeline

From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 23:30:06 +0200
Message-ID: <a0ad8ffe0805011430i5431f56fya4b1b800f27025a0@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Vasil Rangelov" <boen.robot@gmail.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com> wrote:
>  The last time that one was raised, the WG decided to keep p:declare-step. I don't remember the exact reason.
>  But I'm with you on this one. Using p:step seems more natural. I can't imagine if XSLT had xsl:declare-function or xsl:declare-template.

MohamedZ is reminding me of a few things;

a) syntax change is one thing e.g. s/declare-step/step/g


b) declaration of a step

I guess I was implying that a p:step element under a p:library would
be a declaration (telling the defaulting story and providing
functional signature), whilst p:step outside of a p:library would
always be an instantiation of a step.

things once again get messed up when we replace p:pipeline with p:step
... but I do not think so too much; perhaps we add a new step under
standard library called

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

which provides a standard defaulting story for all pipelines ;)

will need a bit more time to think through.

cheers, Jim Fuller
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2008 21:30:39 UTC

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