- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 18:05:37 +0100
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
On Nov 9, 2007 4:01 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > Jim, > > / Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say: > [...] > | | Is a viewport naturally a subpipeline? > | > | I'm not sure what you mean. A p:viewport is a compound step. The p:viewport > | in Example 4.3.2 contains a subpipeline that consists of a single p:insert > | step. Where is the conflict? > | > | | Is it envisaged that the subpipeline, within a viewport, should > | | encapsulated.... e.g. should there be a > | | > | | (p:for-each|p:viewport|p:choose|p:group|p:try|pfx:other-step|p:documentation|ipfx:ignored)* > | | > | | element? taking the 4.3.2 example > | > | A p:insert is a pfx:other-step :-) > > Are you satisfied by this answer? yes, thank you. J
Received on Friday, 9 November 2007 17:05:48 UTC