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

XProc Editors Draft 2007-07-19: Section 2.8 Comments

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:39:22 +0100
Message-ID: <46A4774A.9090002@jenitennison.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

In 2.8.1, the definition of the context node should include what happens 
if there's no default readable port, or the context is empty (which I 
think we said would mean that a document node with no child was used as 
the context).

In 2.8.1, I think that using the in-scope namespaces on the element is 
fine, isn't it? In what way is it insufficient?

In 2.8.2, the definition of the in-scope namespaces contradicts the 
definition in 5.7.3 Option and Parameter Namespace Bindings. This needs 
to be resolved one way or the other. (And I think that this *is* known 
to be insufficient.)

In 2.8.3.1, the value of "p:version": constraining this to xs:decimal is 
too much; I think it should be a string (actually xs:token), so that 
people can have versions like "1.0a" or "2.3.13".

In 2.8.3.3, I think the definition of p:iteration-count should be 
reworded to make it more declarative (and less procedural), so that 
parallel processors are possible. So instead of "the number of 
iterations that have occured", say "the position of the document being 
processed in the sequence of documents being processed".

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 23 July 2007 10:38:14 GMT

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