Re: Editorial comments on Last Call Draft

/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| On 10/3/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
|> | In 2.3 Primary Inputs and Outputs
|> |
|> | Please add the same précaution for "source" and "result" than the
|> | following in 2.5 Parameters
|> | [[
|> | (If the pipeline declares an ordinary input named "parameters", the
|> | implicit primary parameter input port will be named "parameters1". If
|> | that's not available, then "parameters2", etc. until an available name
|> | is found.)
|> | ]]
|>
|> I don't think that's really necessary. It's not going to matter to
|> anyone unless they use parameters.
|
| Ok my point was that you make such precaution for parameters than you
| haven't done for input port="source" and output port="result"
| That mean, in case of a name conflict which name do you generate for
| default input and default output ?

There can't be a conflict in those cases, default input and output
ports are only added to a p:pipeline if it has no input or output.
So the names "source" and "result" will always be unique.

|> | In 3 Syntax Overview
|> |
|> | Please add Parameter Input ports to this list
|> | [[
|> | Six kinds of things are named in XProc:
|> |
|> |    1. Step types,
|> |    2. Steps,
|> |    3. Input ports,
|> |    4. Output ports,
|> |    5. Options, and
|> |    6. Parameters
|> | ]]
|>
|> I think of parameter input ports as a kind of input port. So I think
|> item 3 covers it, but if you feel strongly about it, I won't put up a
|> fight :-)
|
| I make this point because you seem everywhere in the spec to speak
| separatly of "input ports" and "parameter input ports", so to be
| consistent, it will be better

Ok. How about

  ...
  Input ports (both parameter and document),
  ...

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything the same; everything
http://nwalsh.com/            | distinct.