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: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:40:21 -0400
Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC7870ACDC5E0@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

> / 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.
> 

But that would mean that p:pipeline would no longer be translatable to
p:declare-step...

Vojtech
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 12:41:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 April 2008 12:41:34 GMT