- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 02:49:59 -0500
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
> > The p:pipeline element is just syntactic sugar at this point > for a particular p:declare-step. I think the type attribute > on p:pipeline inherits the constraints given on > p:declare-step (though the spec is not clear on that point). > > Since the type must be in a non-null namespace, and since we > interpret all unqualified QName values as being in the > null-namespace, I think it does follow that the second > example above is not valid. > Actually, that was my question. It wasn't clear to me whether the value of the type attribute of p:pipeline must be in a non-null namespace (similar to p:declare-step). Section 4.1 does not say that - but I just read the last couple of sentences in that section where the transformation from p:pipeline to p:declare-step is described, and it follows from there that type must be in a non-null namespace... So I guess it's clear. Regards, Vojtech -- Vojtech Toman Principal Software Engineer EMC Corporation Aert van Nesstraat 45 3012 CA Rotterdam The Netherlands Toman_Vojtech@emc.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 07:46:14 UTC