[closed] Re: Saxonica Comments on XProc last-call draft, sections 3 and 4

Michael,

Many of these comments have been overtaken by events. I believe that the
rest will be answered in the next draft. Thank you for taking the time
to review XProc.

/ Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> was heard to say:
| 4. Minor technical. Last para of 3.5. It might be useful to qualify "behave
| differently". The phraseology in section 3.7 is much more carefully drafted.

Well, given that processors aren't supposed to look inside
p:documentation elements *at all*, I'm not sure it's worth trying to
make that more precise.

| 6. Spelling, section 3.8, "grammer". (Generally, the language in this
| section is a bit too informal for my taste: I think I know what "interpret
| per spec." means, but it doesn't sound very dignified.)

I'm hoping we can wipe this whole section shortly.

| 7. Technical, section 3.9, "It is a static error (err:XS0037) if any step
| contains text nodes that do not consist entirely of whitespace." This
| shouldn't apply in cases where for example the step contains an inline XML
| document or stylesheet.

Right. That should read "directly contains" I guess.

| 8. Technical, Section 4, (Problem noticed here but occurs earlier). The
| definition of "last step" seems inadequate: [Definition: The last step in a
| subpipeline is the last step in document order within its container. ] I'm
| not sure what "its container" refers to (whose container?). And I think it's
| referring only to steps that are "immediately contained", ie. not to steps
| within a subpipeline of the subpipeline.

I think I improved that by replacing "its" with "the subpipeline's"
and by making container a link to the definition of that term.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Do not condemn the judgement of another
http://nwalsh.com/            | because it differs from your own. You
                              | may both be wrong.-- Dandemis