Re: 2.13 3, Phrasing

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> writes:

> It is a static error if the signature of a known step in the version
> library has changed, except for new options.
>
> How to improve (clarify) the phrasing?
> How will an implementation know that the author is assuming a
> different signature than
> the one he/she is expecting?

Becauase the author will have loaded a xproc-1.x.xpl library from
http://www.w3.org/...

> E.g. same name, two parameters, both
> string. If the semantics
> change... how to tell?

The implementation can't tell if the semantics have changed that's why
they must not.

> [definition: The signature of a step is the set of inputs, outputs,
> and options that it is declared to accept.] The declaration for a step
> provides a fixed signature which all its instances share.
>
> Is the signature sufficiently unique for this error to be explicit?

Yes.

> The exception could/should be removed from this error IMHO since it
> only indirectly relates
> (relates only indirectly?) to the error?

I don't understand what you mean.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If you think of standardization as the
http://nwalsh.com/            | best that you know today, but which is
                              | to be improved tomorrow; you get
                              | somewhere.--Henry Ford