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

Re: Updated language draft: 12 Sep 2006

From: Rui Lopes <rlopes@di.fc.ul.pt>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:09:11 +0100
Message-ID: <45096287.1080003@di.fc.ul.pt>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
1 Introduction

* The last phrase of the first paragraph mentions components "Components 
in the pipeline [...]", but the second paragraph introduces the notion 
of component "Each operation in a pipeline is performed by a component 
[...]". Maybe changing to "Operations in the pipeline [...]" will solve 
this.


2 Pipeline Concepts

* "[...] components are functional [...] or side-effect free". Isn't 
this redundant? Also, s/output depends/outputs depend/


2.2 Components

* First paragraph, s/indivisible/perceived as blackboxes/ sounds better, 
imo.


3.5 Group

* "[...] to perform parameter renaming to aid in reuse of sets of 
components." This is a bit too abstract and confusing, at this stage.


3.6 Try/Catch

* The error port is named "#error", while on 4.2.13 it is named "!#error"


4.1.1 Associating Documents with Ports

* The last phrase should be "A document must be specified in exactly one 
of these ways, otherwise a _static error_ is raised."

* The first paragraph of "Specified by source" states "The step and 
source attributes are used for this purpose", but only the first example 
uses this syntax. From this point, all examples in the spec use the 
"step!source" syntax.

* The second paragraph of "Specified by source" states "[...] comes from 
the 'result' port of the step named 'otherstep'". But the "otherstep" 
example doesn't present a "result" port. This _is_ confusing, as there 
is no place in the spec where the implicit output ports are explained.


4.1.3 Syntatic Shortcuts

* The first paragraph states "[...] This means that any inputs, outputs 
[...] must be declared.", but no output is declared in the example. This 
_is_ confusing, once again.


4.2.1 p:pipeline Element

* The first paragraph should mention importing other pipelines and 
declaring components.

* The second paragraph should include the case of naming imported 
pipelines, as follows:

"[...] If a p:pipeline occurs as the child of a p:pipeline-library 
element or if it is imported into another pipeline, it must be named."


4.2.2 p:declare-input Element

* Second paragraph "[...] It is a _static error_ two define" s/two/to

* Last paragraph should read "[...] If provided, the specified XPath 1.0 
[...]", or else the spec should include a section explaining that all 
select expressions are XPath 1.0 (coupled with the exceptions we've 
discussed a while ago).


4.2.3 & 4.2.4 could be swapped, following the definition of p:pipeline 
(p:declare-input, p:declare-output, p:declare-parameter)


4.2.3 p:declare-parameter

* Third paragraph, the purpose of "*" isn't explained.


4.2.4 p:declare-output

* Last paragraph should end with "It is a _static error_ if more than 
one binding is used."


4.2.5 p:step Element

* s/p.step/p:step on the title


4.2.6 p:input Element

* s/p.input/p:input on the title

* The paragraph that starts with "The select expression [...]" should 
specify XPath 1.0 (similarly to 4.2.2)

* The "by source" defines a "step" attribute, but the last example 
doesn't use it (*!* is used)


4.2.10 p:viewport Element

* The paragraph before Example 3 was copy-pasted from Example 2 :) It 
should read

Example 3, "A Sample Viewport" shows an example of a p:viewport in action.


4.2.13 p:try/p:catch Elements

* The paragraph that starts with "Within the p:catch block [...]" states 
the input port "!#error", 3.6 states "#error".

* What happens to #error when we have a try/catch block inside another 
try/catch block? Should this be clarified here or in 3.6?


4.2.15 p:pipeline-library Element

* Should libraries be specified also a language construct on Section 3?


6 Additional functions

Could we include a new section (for now, a placeholder) to describe 
additional functions we may add to XPath? Things such as:

* p:component-available(...) to be used on p:choose blocks
* p:system-property(...) similar to XSLT's function



One last thing, is there any problem to have a first public working 
draft with so little examples on using each syntax elements?



That's all for now :)

Cheers,

Rui


Norman Walsh wrote:
> Available at:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/ED-xproc-20060912/
> 
> I believe I've done the things I said I'd do, plus I've tried to
> cleanup the language a little bit. I'm not sure how successfully.
> 
> As before, I encourage you to review this with an eye most keenly
> towards things that you feel need to be fixed before it becomes a
> public working draft.
> 
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 

Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 14:09:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:48 GMT