- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:06:39 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m263vj97i8.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| 2.2 "All atomic steps are defined by a p:declare-step. The
| declaration of an atomic step defines the input ports, output
| ports, and options of all steps of that type." --> "All
| atomic step types are defined by a p:declare-step. The
| declaration of an atomic step type defines the input ports,
| output ports, and options of all steps of that type."
|
| I think it's worth being pedantic about this at the
| beginning, but I'm _not_ going to make comparable suggestions
| throughout the rest of the spec.
Good, because if you are too agressive on that point, someone's going
to suggest that we rename declare-step to declare-step-type and then
we'll spend four telcons arguing about it.
| 2.2 "In the very simplest case, the declaration is implicit, but"
| Hunh? When is a pipeline every not explicitly declared? I
| think removing this would be just fine. . .
It's implicit in the p:pipeline case where there are no explicit
declarations for the source and result ports.
But I'm content to remove it as well.
| 2.2 Is this the right place to mention that a single output can
| be multiply connected? We haven't said it yet (I don't
| think), and it would be very easy to start assuming that
| there was a one-to-one constraint, in the absence of anything
| to the contrary. Something like "An output port may be
| connected to more than one input port. At runtime this will
| result in distinct copies of the output." just before the
| definition of _signature_.
Done.
| 2.2 "The error output port is only bound to an input in the catch
| clause of a try/catch." -> "Error output ports are un-named,
| and only accessible via the automatic connection made from
| them to the primary input of the *p:catch* subpipeline of an
| immediately containing *p:try/p:catch*"
Ok.
| 2.2 Given that the final discussion in this section about URI
| indeterminacy is dealing in double negatives already, is
| this the place we should also acknowledge that it's
| implementation-defined whether XQuery/XSLT-2.0 rules for
| guaranteeing consistency across multiple references to the
| same URI are provided or not?
I added a para just before the note.
| 2.4 A _bit_ more is needed here, or 2.8 is at best difficult to
| read and at worst incomprehensible. A para. about the
| difference between option declaration and option binding,
| with one example each of select= and value=, perhaps. . .
I'm not sure what section you're actually referring to here...and I'm afraid
I screwed up and checked in the 'alternate' draft on top of the old one.
My bad.
| 2.7 "[Definition: The readable ports are the step name/port name
| pairs that are on steps in the same scope.]" This is too
| narrow, there are other readable ports, as set out just
| below. I think it's sufficient to just say "[Definition: The
| readable ports are a set of step name/port name pairs.]"
Ok.
| 2.7 See my earlier message for what amounts to a suggestion for
| changes to this section.
Uhm. I replied to the earlier message so I guess I've addressed these.
| 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 "Current dateTime
|
| An implementation defined point in time."
| -->
| "Current dateTime
|
| An _implementation defined_ point in time."
Ok.
| 2.8.3 "The XProc processor must support" --> "The XProc processor
| *must* support"
Got it.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Where it is permissible both to die and
http://nwalsh.com/ | not to die, it is an abuse of valour to
| die.-- Mencius
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 19:07:24 UTC