Re: The Scope of Step Names

/ Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
| Erik Bruchez wrote:
|>
|> Alex Milowski wrote:
|>
|>  > 1. Step must be able to refer to other steps that are
|>  >    siblings (preceding and following) otherwise you
|>  >    can't connected steps at all.
|>
|> "Preceding siblings" would be enough IMO.
|
| I don't think we want to limit to preceding siblings.  If a user
| wants to structure their pipeline "logically" from their perspective,
| such a limitation would get in the way.  I can't see how it is
| any issue for an implementer.
|
| Similarly, if a user can't easily determine "before" or just wants
| to quickly insert a step into their pipeline, they shouldn't have
| to figure out what "preceding sibling" means just to do that.

If we imagine that many (perhaps most) authors will eventually rely
on defaulting at least sometimes, the order of steps will be very
important. I don't see any benefit in saying that sometimes it isn't.
And "before" is pretty easy to determine.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.