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

Re: Editor's draft for review by 28 June 2007

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:58:24 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bd4zggm7j.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

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

I wonder if we don't need to introduce the notion of 'step type'
somewhere early in section 2 [1] . . .  It seems odd to say, for
example, as we do in 2.2, "Each step declares its input and output
ports."  That's not true of any of the steps we've seen in examples up
to that point. . .

"it's outputs" --> "its outputs" in 2.2.

In 2.2, surely it's implementation-_defined_, not
implementation-_determined_, how external inputs/outputs are hooked
up.

Not sure the definition of _matches_ at the end of 2.2 gets it right
wrt outputs. . .

Add to 2.4, maybe: "It is implementation-defined whether and if so how
parameter name/value pairs may be established from outside a
pipeline."

More later.

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#stages
- -- 
 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)

iD8DBQFGg8yQkjnJixAXWBoRAj6bAJ4sLSzws9Mb8i0ex5fYtxSWFdZU5QCePUEd
ChrjRL3WyD8kONZhiZH9Y0A=
=8h+5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 14:58:39 GMT

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