Re: XProc Editors Draft 2007-07-19: Section 2.1 Comments

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Another few editorial comments.

I think I've addressed these, too.

| It's not clear to me whether a pipeline is an atomic step or a compound step.
| From the point of view of the pipeline invoking it, it's an atomic step, but
| from inside the pipeline it's a compound step, right?
|
| In the description of "ports" (third from last paragraph), it's not clear
| whether all port (inputs and outputs) must be uniquely named, or whether inputs
| must be uniquely named and outputs must be uniquely named. A statement like "no
| port can have the same name as another port on the same step" would perhaps
| clarify things.
|
| Final paragraph: "Steps may have access to any number of parameters, all with
| unique names." I think it's possible to have two parameter ports, each of which
| is passed a parameter called 'foo'. So parameters don't have to have unique
| names, although the parameters on a particular parameter port do have to have
| unique names. I think this paragraph needs rewording to something like:
|
|   "Steps have parameter ports, on which parameters can be passed. The
|    parameters passed on a particular parameter port must be uniquely
|    named. A step can have zero parameter ports, and each parameter port
|    can have zero parameters passed on it."
|
| I have a feeling that this section is mixing the concepts of "step" and "step
| type" fairly freely, but I can't put my finger on any particular instance where
| this causes real confusion.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Graduate school is where you learn to
http://nwalsh.com/            | call a spade a leveraged
                              | tactile-feedback geomass delivery
                              | system.--Martha Koester