RE: p:output and connections

Shouldn't that error say "atomic extension steps" instead of "atomic step"
then? There isn't a precise definition for either, but from 4.7, and 4.8,
it's easy to suggest that "atomic steps" are ones in the XProc namespace,
whereas "atomic extension steps" are ones not in the XProc namespace and
with a declaration of some sort (with or without a subpipeline).

And even if that's the intended case... why just extension atomic steps? If
it's not an error to do this on atomic steps (i.e. atomic steps in the XProc
namespace), what happens when this occurs (question 2 in my original
message)?

And what about extension atomic steps with a declared output port that has
no connection (question 3 in my original message)? What happens then?

Regards,
Vasil Rangelov

-----Original Message-----
From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk] 
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 12:57 AM
To: Vasil Rangelov
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: p:output and connections

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Vasil Rangelov writes:

> "It is a static error (err:XS0029) to specify a connection for a p:output
> inside a p:declare-step for an atomic step."
>
> <p:declare-step xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc"
>                 name="xinclude-and-validate"
>                 version="1.0">
>   <p:input port="source" primary="true"/>
>   <p:input port="schemas" sequence="true"/>
>   <p:output port="result">
>     <p:pipe step="validated" port="result"/>
>   </p:output>
>

Easy to misunderstand, I guess, but note the word 'atomic'.  Your
example is not an atomic step == an extension step with
implementation-built-in, as opposed to specified using XProc.

ht
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged
spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFK9KnXkjnJixAXWBoRAnfPAJ0ep2Sct6GwlBtReY7Hjtl0AWd+nwCdFPdy
8siuZWv32ta1kaBKPY9smnw=
=NiVN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Saturday, 7 November 2009 13:10:13 UTC