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

Re: Final draft for publication on 28 Sep 2006

From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:49:17 +0200
Message-ID: <45119B3D.5080307@orbeon.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Norm & all,

Great work!

Some more typos in additions to the ones pointed to by Mohamed:

2.2 Inputs and Outputs

"Although come kinds" -> "Although some kinds"

4.2.7 p:param Element

"evaulated" -> "evaluated"

Besides the typos that I hope can be fixed, I don't think we should
stop the press for our first public WD.

A few comments about a few things that bothered me though:

o The terminology "here document" is a little funny. Have we thought
   about "in place document" or "inline document" instead?

o In section "1 Introduction", we say that the input to a component
   comes "from the web, from the pipeline document, from the inputs to
   the pipeline itself, or from the outputs of other components in the
   pipeline". When you read it this sounds like an exhaustive list, but
   it is not since we can use URIs to feed inputs. For example the
   input of a step can be file:/c:/foo.xml, which is none of the above.

o In section "4.1 Overview", we say that "Elements which represent
   components all have unique names", but as we say in 4.2.1 and 4.2.5,
   uniqueness depends on scope. So the wording in 4.1 is confusing.

o In section "3.6 Try/Catch", I assume that we can have try/catch
   within a catch (since the content of catch is a subpipeline), in
   which case the wording "If the recovery subpipeline is evaluated and
   a component within that subpipeline fails, the try fails." is not
   clear enough. For example, you if a nested component fails but is
   encapsulated within a nested try, then the corresponding nested
   catch takes care of the failure.

That's it for now!

-Erik

Norman Walsh wrote:
 > Per the minutes of our 14 Sep 2006 telcon[1], Henry and I have taken
 > another editorial pass through the XProc language document in an
 > effort to make the step/component/construct/container story more
 > consistent. I've also taken the liberty of editorial polish here and
 > there (incorporating, for example, the editorial comments of several
 > reviewers).
 >
 > The new draft is available at
 >
 >   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/ED-xproc-20060916/
 >
 > I think our efforts have resulted in a better document and one that's
 > certainly ready for initial public review. I encourage you to give it
 > a "thumbs up" for publication.
 >
 > If there are no objections by 05:00p EDT (02:00p PDT, 21:00GMT,
 > 22:00BST, 23:00CEST, 06:00JST+, 02:30a India+) Wednesday, 20 Sep 2006,
 > this is the draft that we will publish as our First Public Working
 > Draft on 28 Sep 2006.
 >
 > If there are any objections, we will instead publish the earlier draft
 >
 >   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/ED-xproc-20060912/
 >
 > with Section 4.1.3 removed, as recorded in our 14 Sep 2006 minutes.
 >
 > I've published a "diff" version that shows the changes between these
 > two drafts at
 >
 >   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/ED-xproc-20060916/diff.html
 >
 > but the changes are sufficiently widespread that it may not be very
 > useful.
 >
 >                                         Be seeing you,
 >                                           norm
 >
 > [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2006/09/14-minutes.html

-- 
Orbeon - XForms Everywhere:
http://www.orbeon.com/blog/
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 19:49:31 GMT

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