W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > March 2009

Re: isnt p:group just p:declare-step

From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:59:49 +0200
Message-ID: <a0ad8ffe0903310159y3305aaebq7f5808f76bbccb22@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
I think you don't have to say anything about what it can't do,
signature definition in terms of p:declare-step should communicate
this enough without having to use a lot of *must* and/or *should* type

my 2czk, Jim

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 9:23 AM,  <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> wrote:
>> it occurred to me that p:group is almost like p:declare-step and more
>> of a syntax shortcut along the lines of p:pipeline ... should we not
>> frame it in these terms within the spec ?
> Hi Jim,
> I personally don't think p:group is that close to p:declare-step. You
> probably could say that p:group is a (very) stripped-down version of
> p:declare-step, but then you would need to say a lot about things that
> you can't do, or that vork differently in p:group - you can't have
> p:input, p:option, p:serialization in p:group, nor @type nor the various
> other attributes of p:declare-step, etc. You also can't import or
> declare other steps in p:group.
> Certainly possible to say that p:group is a simplified p:declare-step,
> but I don't see many benefits of doing so. It wouldn't simplify much,
> Regards,
> Vojtech
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 09:00:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:26 UTC