W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > August 2007

Re: XProc Editors Draft 2007-07-19: Section 3.2 Comments

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:55:44 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87tzrj8a9b.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| I think this section needs to talk about the scope of pipeline type names in a
| pipeline library: say that each pipeline in a pipeline library must have a
| unique type, and talk about the scope of those pipeline names. A reference to
| another section that talks about this in detail would be sufficient.

Hmmm. I changed the first paragraph of 3.2 to read:

  The scope of the names of step types is the pipeline. Each pipeline
  processor has some number of built in step types and may declare
  (directly, or by reference to an external library) additional step
  types. All the step types in a pipeline must have unique names: it
  is a static error (err:XS0036) if two declarations for the same step
  type name appear in the same scope.

I wonder if that helps.

| The paragraph:
|
|   The scope of option names is essentially the same as the scope of step
|   names, with the following caveat: whereas step names must be unique,
|   option names may be repeated. An option specified on a step shadows
|   any specification that may already be in-scope.
|
| is pretty confusing. Since option names can be repeated, does that mean it's OK
| to do:
|
|   <p:group>
|     <p:option name="foo" ... />
|     <p:option name="foo" ... />
|     ...
|   </p:group>


I changed that to:

  The scope of option names is the step on which they occur and the
  descendants of that step. The names of all of the options specified on
  a step must be unique. If a step specifies a value for an option with
  the same name as some option specified on one of its ancestors, the
  new value shadows the previous value on the current step and its
  descendants.

| The last sentence is about options within step invocations rather than options
| at the container step level, and I think it would be helpful to separate it into
| a different paragraph. At this level, can you have multiple options with the
| same name, as in:
|
|   <p:load>
|     <p:option name="href" ... />
|     <p:option name="href" ... />

You can't do that.

|   </p:load>
|
| (The same distinction might be useful with ports.)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Decide, v.i. To succumb to the
http://nwalsh.com/            | preponderance of one set of influences
                              | over another set.--Ambrose Bierce

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 16:55:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:53 GMT