W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > October 2012

RE: ACTION A-220-04

From: Toman, Vojtech <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:08:38 -0400
To: XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F3C7EBECE80AC346BE4D1C5A9BB4A41F2EE73E3142@MX11A.corp.emc.com>
When I started drafting the errata, it quickly turned out that it would require changes (some of them rather substantial, like changing a definition) in six or seven sections (Steps, Step names, p:choose, p:when, p:otherwise, p:group, p:try, p:catch, ...).

Regards,
Vojtech

--
Vojtech Toman
Consultant Software Engineer
EMC | Information Intelligence Group
vojtech.toman@emc.com
http://developer.emc.com/xmltech


> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Fuller [mailto:jim@webcomposite.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:45 PM
> To: Alex Milowski
> Cc: XProc WG
> Subject: Re: ACTION A-220-04
> 
> agree with Alex, will add to v2 requirements doc so we dont forget.
> 
> J
> 
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Toman, Vojtech
> <vojtech.toman@emc.com> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I took a deeper look at ACTION A-220-04
> >> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-
> comments/2012Jul/0002.html).
> >>
> >> It turns out to be more interesting than it seemed at the first
> >> glance. The main issue is that on one hand we say that
> >> p:when/p:otherwise are just wrappers and not steps, yet at the same
> >> time we seem to assume that they behave as compound steps ("If a
> >> compound step has no declared outputs and the last step in its
> >> subpipeline has an unconnected primary output, ..." etc.). The same
> applies to p:group/p:catch in p:try.
> >>
> >> There are two ways of fixing this (both of them require more or less
> >> the same amount of changes, but have different implications):
> >>
> >> 1. Make p:when/p:otherwise in p:choose and p:group/p:catch in p:try
> compound
> >>    steps and get rid of the notion "non-step wrapper". This might
> require some
> >>    tweaks here and there (the definition of what "container" meens
> for
> >>    multi-container steps would have to change), but I think it could
> work.
> >
> > I prefer this approach.  I think it makes things more uniform.
> >
> > I am concerned about the scope of such a change.  It feels like
> > something we should fix in 2.0 and attempt to clarify, if possible,
> in
> > the errata.  Whether we can fix it in an errata is unclear to me
> right
> > now.
> >
> > --
> > --Alex Milowski
> > "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity
> > of the inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the
> > language considered."
> >
> > Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
> >
> 
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 11:09:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 11 October 2012 11:09:24 GMT