W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: p:declare-step | p:import in p:declare-step

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:46:49 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m24p9rv5jq.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| let's say that we have (p:declare-step[1] | p:import[2]) in
| p:declare-step[3]
|
| if [3] is an atomic step (non sub-pipeline declared), what do mean a [1] ?
| in case [1] is a declaration of atomic step ? in case [1] is a declaration
| of a pipeline ?
|
| and what about having [2] in [3] when [3] is an atomic step ?

Bleh. I think it was a mistake to put import and declare-step in the
signature. I think we should change p:declare-step to:

<p:declare-step
  name? = NCName
  type? = QName
  psvi-required? = boolean
  xpath-version? = string>
    (p:input |
     p:output |
     p:option |
     p:log |
     p:serialization)*,
   ((p:import | p:declare-step)*,
    subpipeline)?
</p:declare-step>

That is: you should only be able to use p:import and p:declare-step when
you're defining a pipeline.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The first step towards madness is to
http://nwalsh.com/            | think oneself wise.--Fernando De Rojas

Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 11:47:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 April 2008 11:47:30 GMT