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: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:16:29 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2tzhk4owy.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say:
| / 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.

I went ahead and did this.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A man may by custom fortify himself
http://nwalsh.com/            | against pain, shame, and suchlike
                              | accidents; but as to death, we can
                              | experience it but once, and are all
                              | apprentices when we come to it.--
                              | Montaigne

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 16:17:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 April 2008 16:17:21 GMT