- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:11:26 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2fxzfgx8h.fsf_-_@nwalsh.com>
/ James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say: | 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. You're welcome. :-) Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The First Amendment is often http://nwalsh.com/ | inconvenient. But that is besides the | point. Inconvenience does not absolve | the government of its obligation to | tolerate speech.--Justice Anthony | Kennedy, in 91-155
Received on Friday, 9 November 2007 17:11:40 UTC