W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > September 2008

[closed] Re: clarify the difference of usage of p:input in section 5.1.1.

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:18:04 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <m23ajjt4rn.fsf_-_@nwalsh.com>
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:
> "James Fuller" <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> writes:
>> I know why p:pipe missing as a valid element from the first
>> definition of p:input at 5.1.1 Document Inputs, e.g. this first usage is
>> when p:input is used in a declaration versus an 'atomic step'.
>> the context of the first usage is not all that clear and propose clarification.
> Nor is it clear how best to clarify it. I've tried the following:
> 1. Moved "An input declaration has the following form:" into a paragraph of
> its own before the first tableaux. I also emphasized the word "declaration".
> 2. Made a parallel change before the second tableaux, reading "An input
> binding has the following form:" with the word "binding" emphasized.
> 3. I added a note after the paragraph that talks about default bindings:
>   Note
>   The p:pipe element is explicitly excluded from a declaration because
>   it would make the default value of an input dependent on the
>   execution of some part of the pipeline. Default values are designed
>   so that they can be computed statically.
> Does that help? If not, do you have any suggestions about what you
> think might?

The WG concluded that this was sufficient, please let us know if you disagree.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | We are thinking beings, and we cannot
http://nwalsh.com/            | exclude the intellect from
                              | participating in any of our
                              | functions.--William James

Received on Monday, 29 September 2008 14:18:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:41:08 UTC