[closed] Re: viewport

/ 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