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

RE: CR draft ready for review

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:36:01 -0500
Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC7870D84C3A6@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

> Folks,
> 
> I've published a CR draft in the usual place:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html
> 
> A diff between this draft and the Last Call draft will follow shortly.
> 
> I think it's pubrules clean, so I don't plan to do any more tinkering
> with it beyond moving it into a staging directory for the web master.
> 
> Reports of typos and silly grammatical mistakes most welcome.
> Suggestions for substantive changes, less so :-)
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm

Great news, thanks for all the work!

Today I found two small things:

5.1.2 says:

"If a parameter input port on a ***p:pipeline*** is not bound, it is
treated as if it was bound to an automatically created p:sink step. In
other words, if a ***p:pipeline*** does not contain any steps that have
parameter input ports, ..."

Shouldn't the text use "pipeline which contains the step" instead of
p:pipeline? The containing pipeline can be represented also by
p:declare-step, not only p:pipeline, so the text may be misleading that
this behavior applies only to p:pipeline.

I am also wondering: how can anything be bound (be it only formally) to
p:sink which has no output ports?

-

5.1.2/Example 10 says:
"This p:pipeline declares that it accepts parameters."

The pipeline contains no parameter input port, so I think we should
remove the sentence.


Regards,
Vojtech
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 10:36:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 November 2008 10:36:48 GMT