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

Re: Forward references

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 08:37:49 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0708062337v7661ba18v5a6b7ab2f5f81391@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On 8/7/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> | Hum...general rule ?
> |
> | Isn't all the business of output a forward reference ?
>
> Yes, that's true.
>
> | Don't we say that step at the same level see each other outputs (so
> | backward AND foreward) ?
> |
> | Don't we say that p:log could reference any output (once), so to speak
> | even the one declared after
>
> Yes, I was just wondering if we wanted to make the p:output come first.
> Now I'm guessing probably not :-)
>
> | Where do you see it as a general rule ?
>
> Well, in particular, p:declare-step and imported pipelines have to
> come before the steps they define are called.


Ok I see your point, but I think what triggers me on this point is "before"
I just don't think it is at the same level : they just have to be
declared and the declaration happens to be in the prolog of the
pipeline
and for pipeline-library, i'm still unconvinced we should let user
override definiion (shouldn't we ?)

Mohamed

-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 06:37:54 GMT

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