W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Annotations for side effects and stability

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 07:53:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4450DAD4.9060703@milowski.org>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Norman Walsh wrote:

> | I don't see how this is different than #3.  The graphs are exactly the
> | same.
> No, they aren't. In the first graph, two different components are run:
> p:first and p:second, then p:foo. In the second graph, the same
> component is run twice: p:copy and p:copy, then p:foo.

Ah... but I see that as two steps that use the same component.  If they
are the same *step*, then I agree with you.  In the XML, they look like
separate steps due to the fact that there are two different [p:]step

This is where I think using a concrete syntax fails us right now
because we can't map it back to stable semantics that we all agree
upon.  A flow graph of some sort helps... but that might make
discussions onerous if everyone has to draw a graph.

--Alex Milowski
Received on Thursday, 27 April 2006 14:53:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:39 UTC