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

Re: clarify the difference of usage of p:input in section 5.1.1.

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:32:11 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <m24p4db904.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"James Fuller" <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> writes:

> I know why p:pipe missing as a valid element from the first
> definition of p:input at 5.1.1 Document Inputs, e.g. this first usage is
> when p:input is used in a declaration versus an 'atomic step'.
>
> the context of the first usage is not all that clear and propose clarification.

Nor is it clear how best to clarify it. I've tried the following:

1. Moved "An input declaration has the following form:" into a paragraph of
its own before the first tableaux. I also emphasized the word "declaration".

2. Made a parallel change before the second tableaux, reading "An input
binding has the following form:" with the word "binding" emphasized.

3. I added a note after the paragraph that talks about default bindings:

  Note

  The p:pipe element is explicitly excluded from a declaration because
  it would make the default value of an input dependent on the
  execution of some part of the pipeline. Default values are designed
  so that they can be computed statically.

Does that help? If not, do you have any suggestions about what you
think might?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Do not seek to follow in the footsteps
http://nwalsh.com/            | of men of old; seek what they
                              | sought.--Matsuo Basho

Received on Thursday, 18 September 2008 18:32:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 18 September 2008 18:32:54 GMT