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

Re: New draft: 27 Oct 2006

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 07:18:39 -0800
Message-ID: <454A0C4F.2030608@milowski.org>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Norman Walsh wrote:
> Following yesterday's telcon, I spent some time excising "flow graph"
> From our language spec and trying to craft a better "Scope of Names"
> section. I also took the liberty of fiddling a bit with the section
> hierarchy. You can see my results, with diffs, at
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/ED-xproc-20061027/

1. I think "declared input" should be a term so that the sentence:

    "All of the declared inputs of the pipeline are added to the outputs
    in the context."

    will make more sense.

2. In section 4.1, "Scope of Names", it could be read that input names
    are unique, output names are unique, but they don't have to be unique
    if put together.

    Maybe the paragraph:

    "The scope of an input or output port name is the component on which
     it is defined. The names of all input and output ports on any
     component must be unique."

    should read something like (along with the next single sentence):

    "The scope of an input or output port name is the component on which
     it is defined.  Both input and output port names are considered
     together as one set of port names that must be unique on the
     component.  As such, when the component name and port name are
     taken together, these uniqueness constraints guarantee that the
     combination uniquely identifies exactly one in-scope port."

Looks good otherwise.  I'll do a more careful read later today.

--Alex Milowski
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2006 15:18:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:41 UTC