- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:36:12 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2k5b7cw2r.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes: > Is this allowed: > > <p:declare-step ...> > <p:declare-step ...> > <p:import href="http://www.w3.org/2008/xproc-2.0.xpl"/> > ... > </p:declare-step> > ... > </p:declare-step> > > It seems to me that we could say it is allowed, and has the effect of > making the entire pipeline use the 2.0 definitions, or we could say > no, that if you want to use 2.0 definitions inside a nested pipeline > (for example, one you've imported), then you have to also have the > import for that library at the top level. > > It seems to me that the tricky part of allowing it is dealing with > steps that you may already have parsed before you see the 2.0 import. > E.g., what if you rejected them because they use new options defined > in 2.0? > > On the whole, I think it might be safer to say that nested imports of > new versions are only legal if the new version has already been > imported. The WG considered this issue and concluded that they would only say that an implementation may raise an error if it encounters a nested import of a versioning pipeline library. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The best people usually owe their http://nwalsh.com/ | excellence to a combination of | qualities which might have been | supposed incompatible.--Bertrand Russell
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2008 18:36:53 UTC