Re: a few comments on latest draft

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> | Example 3. A validate and transform pipeline
> |
> | propose highlighting the use of an Optional step (p:validate-with-xml-schema)
>
> I suppose we could, but does it add value?

only a little to newbies

> | should we explicitly define primary outputs in Standard and Optional steps ?
>
> I don't understand the question.

I dont either anymore .. I think this was already addressed as the
text read fine now.

> | in section 1 Introduction
> |
> | 'The pipeline document determines how the steps are connected together
> | inside the pipeline. How inputs are connected to XML documents outside
> | the pipeline is implementation-defined. How pipeline outputs are
> | connected to XML documents outside the pipeline is
> | implementation-defined.'
> |
> | do we want to delineate between the 'outside world' e.g. the top level
> | pipeline versus a pipeline that is executing in the context of a
> | nested pipeline ?
>
> Isn't that what that paragraph does?

yes.


> | in section 2 Pipeline Concepts
> |
> | 'A pipeline must behave as if it evaluated each step each time it occurs.'
> |
> | is it more valid to say  memoisation is not allowed ... or is this too
> | constraining ?
>
> For the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the technical term, I'm not
> inclined to make this change.

ok

> | in section 1 it says
> | in section 2.1.1 Step names
> |
> | I am a unsure about the need to specifically prescribe the manufactured format
> | I propose to keep existing text but frame it as an 'example'.
>
> I think we decided that we'd like to define it, though I suppose
> that's not strictly necessary.

ok, loosening the definition makes it easier for impl.

> | I must have lost the thread on this discussion but what happens when
> |
> | <p:declare-step
> |   xpath-version? = string>
> |
> | and a pipelines xpath-version
> |
> | have different values ... is this a static error ? just need a pointer here
>
> That text has been clarified, I think. If you don't find it clear now,
> please let us know.

yes its fine now.

>
> | probably need to expand the definition of pfx:user-pipeline ... somewhere
> |
> | also, shouldn't p:standard-step be pfx:atomic-step ?
>
> I think we worked on this too. Let us know if you still have questions.

yes fine now.

J

Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 12:19:54 UTC