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

Re: subpipelines, Vnext and extension elements redux

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:48:32 +0000
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5br6e6pve7.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> I think that's where we wound up back when we decided to take
> pfx:other-compound-step out of 4.7, 
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xproc-20070706/#p.other

A primary motivation for my lengthy re-analysis was because it
re-surfaced in the alternate draft, and is still there today [1]:

 "The presence of other compound steps is implementation-defined;
  XProc provides no standard mechanism for defining them or describing
  what they can contain."

> | Phew!
> |
> | _If_ we accept this analysis and its conclusion, I think I know what
> | 2.1 and 4.7 should look like . . .

See next message.

[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#p.atomic
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 15:49:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 March 2008 15:49:06 GMT