- From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:58:51 -0800
- To: "public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org" <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
We have a number of places where the 'name' attribute is provided. In some cases it is just for providing a way to have a fragment identifier. For p:declare-step, p:when, p:otherwise, and p:pipeline-library, we say nothing about this attribute even though the declaration shows that such an attribute is allowed. Further, for all cases where the fragment identifier is allowed, we say nothing about its uniqueness. In particular, it would be very easy for a pipeline author to use the same name attribute value on a p:when that they uses for a step. In both cases the name attribute value is a fragment identifier and will cause an ambiguity as to which construct is the target of the URI. Even further, if the same name value is used on two steps in the same scope, it is an error but if the same name value is used on a step and one of the other constructs (e.g. p:when or p:declare-step) that can have a fragment identifier it is not an error. This seems inconsistent. I think it would be better to say that in all cases the named construct is added to the "in-scope" names so that conflicts can be detected. When you refer to something that you can't, you'd just get a different static error (e.g. you can refer to a port on a p:declare-step via its name). -- --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 Monday, 12 November 2007 20:59:01 UTC