- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:49:44 +0100
- To: "Richard Tobin" <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 11/21/06, Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> ... while looking at the spec.
>
> "subpipeline" is used as a non-terminal in the syntax section, but not
> defined there. There's a definition of the concept "subpipeline",
> but not of the term as used in the pseudo-grammar. It should be
> something like
>
> (p:step|p:for-each|p:viewport|p:choose|p:group|p:try)*
agree with just a slight little improvment
(p:step|p:for-each|p:viewport|p:choose|p:group|p:try|anyOther)*
anyOther being an any element in another namespace
>
> Ports are named with the "port" attribute. I think "name" is a much
> more intuitive name for the name (and is consistent with parameter).
>
> The attribute names "source" and "step" for binding inputs seem a poor
> pair to me. Both in fact identify the source. "source-port" and
> "source-step" would be better.
completly agree with both propositions
the more I read
<p:output port="valid" step="val2" source="result"/>
the less I see which goes with which
<p:output name="valid" source-step="val2" source-port="result"/>
is clearly more readable
but
<p:output port="valid" source-step="val2" source-port="result"/>
could still be
Mohamed
--
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 20:49:59 UTC