Re: Comments on Editor's Draft 9 January 2008

/ Toman_Vojtech@emc.com was heard to say:
| Thanks for answering the questions. I think it's all clear now, except
| for this:
|
|> I believe we've addressed this:
|> 
|>    If p:log or p:serialization elements appear in the declaration of
|>    an atomic step, they will only be used if the atomic step is
|>    directly evaluated by the processor. They are ignored if the step
|>    appears in a pipeline.
|> 
|
| What does "atomic step is directly evaluated by the processor" actually
| mean in this context? I am still a bit confused how to understand the
| two sentences. Can you give me an example?

Sure. Imagine that you have a command line processor that use "-i
port=doc" to identify inputs, "-o port=doc" to identify outputs, "-ns
prefix=uri" to identify command-line namespace bindings, and
"-pipeline qname" to identify the pipeline to run.

Then I expect the following to run the atomic step "p:xslt" directly:

  xproc -i stylesheet=x.xsl -i source=x.xml -o result=o.xml \
        -ns p=http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc -pipeline p:xslt

If the declaration for the "p:xslt" atomic step had serialization or
log declarations, I would expect them to be used in this case. If the
p:xslt appeared in a pipeline, they would not.

(I'm afraid we still don't have a clear description of how p:pipeline,
p:declare-step, and atomic steps really interact since we made our 
syntax changes :-( )

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | You must not think me necessarily
http://nwalsh.com/            | foolish because I am facetious, nor
                              | will I consider you necessarily wise
                              | because you are grave.--Sydney Smith