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

Re: The Scope of Step Names

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:36:37 +0100
To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5b3ba6r55m.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Alex Milowski writes:

Alex Milowski writes:

> In section 4.1.2, we have:
> "The scope of component names is the flow graph of their container and
> the flow graphs of the constructs therein, recursively."

> I think should have been 'step names'.  component names are global
> as they represent a type of component that can be used in a step.

That's a confusion -- 'component' is the cover term in this draft for
steps (XSLT, XInclude, etc.) and constructs (choose, for-each, etc.).

Individual steps have types and names, individual constructs have
names too.

> and just define the scope of step names explicitly.

> 1. Step must be able to refer to other steps that are
>    siblings (preceding and following) otherwise you
>    can't connected steps at all.

There is no preceding or following!  Siblings is it.  That's covered
by "the flow graph of their container", i.e. any sibling of me can see
me, because they're in the flow graph of my container.

> 2. Steps must be able to refer to their step container
>    because otherwise you can't bind to the input of
>    the container (e.g. the input of the pipeline).

That's covered by "the flow graphs of the constructs therein",
i.e. anything inside me can see me.

> 3. Steps should be able to refer to ancestors so that
>    you can refer to ancestor inputs (e.g. a descendant
>    may want to refer to the pipeline input).

That's covered by the "recursively".

> 4. Steps should be able to refer to siblings of
>    ancestors.

That's covered by the "recursively".

> 5. Steps should not be able to refer to any descendant steps
>    of ancestors or siblings of ancestors that are
>    step containers.  That is, you can't point inside a
>    step container that isn't your ancestor.

That's not covered, so it's not allowed.

So I think you've just expanded what we already said.  Clearly the way
it's said in the current WD is not clear enough, but I don't think any
_substantive_ change is needed to concur with what you've written
above, just wording improvement, or examples, or both.

> Of these, (4) is probably the most "controversial".

Not controversial as far as I'm concerned.

- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 17:36:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:40 UTC