W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > September 2008

Re: step must contain only a signature

From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:39:04 +0200
Message-ID: <a0ad8ffe0809182239o5757195cibb882d609def0007@mail.gmail.com>
To: "James Garriss" <james@garriss.org>
Cc: "XProc Dev" <xproc-dev@w3.org>

On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 9:49 PM, James Garriss <james@garriss.org> wrote:
>> Is there something we could do that would have made things clearer?

Hello James,

> Maybe.  What if you translated the declaration syntax for us newbies by
> using examples to show the different ways it can be expressed, then put it
> in an appendix?  Maybe something like this:

A spec should strive to be used as a instructional document for end
users, but it does has its limitations ... There are some precedents
in place for documents that show problems and their solution (such as
the XQuery use case document) ... but I think its a bit too late to
add such a section to the existing draft spec.

> or like this (if you want to be less verbose):
> <p:delete match="BookStore/Book/Title">
>   <p:input port="source"/>
>   <p:output port="result"/>
> </p:delete>
> or even like this (if you want to be really succinct):
> <p:delete match="BookStore/Book/Title"/>
> And I wouldn't mind seeing good definitions/explanations/examples for things
> like XSLTMatchPattern, IRI, QName, and XPathExpression in the glossary.

I think this is what the C Glossary section is for; a lot of the
people involved in XProc are also close to other XML technologies and
sometimes assume that a link to relevant spec is all that is required.
I think a few more terms could be added to the glossary.

hth, J
Received on Friday, 19 September 2008 05:39:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:03:03 UTC