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

This has an impact on the order of elements no ?

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:

> / 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
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €