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

Comments on August 22 editors' draft from section 2.8 through 4.2

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:50:30 +0100
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5b7inmz4nd.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

2.8
 "XPath processor" --> "XProc processor"

2.8.3.1
  "Four aspects" --> "various aspects"

3.2
  "Step types are:" needs a fourth bullet:

   * Built-in as extensions by a particular processor

 -----

   "it is a static error (err:XS0036) if any step type name appears
    more than once in the same scope"
  -->

   "it is a static error (err:XS0036) if any step type name is
    built-in and/or declared or defined more than once in the same
    scope"

 -----

   "the names of its ancestors; and" --> "the names of its ancestors and"
     (or, if you must, "the names of its ancestors, and", but surely
      no ;)

3.6

  "...that library. It is a static error (err:XS0015) to specify the
   XProc namespace, the namespace of any imported p:pipeline, or any
   namespace in which an atomic step has been declared as an ignored
   namespace."

   -->

  "...that library.

  "It is a static error (err:XS0015) to specify the XProc namespace,
   the namespace of any imported p:pipeline, or any namespace in which
   an atomic step is declared as an ignored namespace."

   [note substantive changes as well as para break]

3.8

  I still think it would be helpful to clarify the overall situation
  wrt extensions and ignored elements, by adding a para. along the
  following lines at the end of this section:

   "It follows from the above that the decision tree for elements in
    subpipelines is:

    1) in XProc namespace?
       1a) names a built-in compound step?
           Check against grammar, interpret per spec.
       1b) names a built-in atomic step?
           Check against grammar and built-in declaration, interpret
           per spec.
    2) names a declared step type?
       Check against grammar and user-supplied type declaration,
       interpret per spec.
    3) names a defined pipeline?
       Check against pipeline definition, interpret per spec.
    4) in ignorable namespace?
       4a) Known extension?
           Process as appropriate.
       4b) Otherwise
           Ignore.
    5) otherwise
       Error."

4.2

  "When a pipeline needs to process a sequence of documents using a
   subpipeline that begins with a step that only accepts a single
   document, the p:for-each construct can be used as a wrapper around
   the step that accepts only a single document."

    -->

  "When a pipeline needs to process a sequence of documents using a
   step that only accepts a single document, the p:for-each construct
   can be used as a wrapper around that step."

 together with

  "If the subpipeline is connected to one or more output ports on the
   p:for-each, what appears on each of those ports is the sequence of
   documents that is the concatenation of the sequence produced by
   each iteration of the loop."

 -->

  "If the p:for-each has one or more output ports, what appears on
   each of those ports is the sequence of documents that is the
   concatenation of the sequence produced by each iteration of the
   loop on the port to which it is connected."

4.2.1

  Cross-reference p:iteration-position and p:iteration-size to section
  2.8.3.

 -----

  "in the case where no XPath expression that must be evaluated by
   the processor makes any reference to these functions, these values
   do not actually have to be calculated"

 -->

  "in the case where no XPath expression that must be evaluated by
   the processor makes any reference to p:iteration-size, its value
   does not actually have to be calculated"

ht
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGzZ62kjnJixAXWBoRAj6aAJ9NBFqPRgbfH1bNvCv0j2Ut7BTyhgCeMNw5
QlFXEBuWtJabztyma2EsQ5Q=
=j5ae
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 14:50:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT