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

Re: A proposal to restructure our top-level syntax

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:21:50 +0000
To: "Alessandro Vernet" <avernet@orbeon.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5b8x3yevy9.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Alessandro Vernet writes:

> On Dec 12, 2007 10:43 AM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>  a) p:pipeline has no name or type attribute;
>>  b) p:declare-step has a type but no name;
> I am confused by the distinction we are trying to make here between
> p:pipeline and a p:declare-step. What would really be the difference
> between a p:pipeline and a p:declare-step at the root of the document
> (if it was allowed)?

I wasn't suggesting it _would_ be allowed.  My proposal is to make
p:pipeline a convenience for the 90% case:  it effectively corresponds
to a p:pipeline-library containing a single p:declare-step with
attributes and contents taken from the p:pipeline.  That's just a way
of thinking about, or defining its semantics -- it's up to the editor
whether, if we adopt this in principle, he describes it that way, or
in its own terms.

- -- 
 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]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 10:22:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:45 UTC