RE: New XProc editor's WG reflects latest proposals

On second thought, in addition to that... what happens with unknown elements
(steps or instructions*)? This is still not clear. If I recall correctly, a
new dynamic error was going to happen. Where's the paragraph about that?

* By that, I mean p:serialization, p:xpath-context and p:document like
elements. Let me note again that (I for one think) these elements deserve a
formal qualification. I'd even go as far as to suggest a function for their
detection (especially useful with p:use-when). Say, p:element-available(),
which would be similar to p:step-available(), only it would also detect
"instructions" and "extension instructions". And/or there could be
p:instruction-available(), which would only detect "instruction" elements
(i.e. not steps). I don't feel strong for the exact term "instructions" -
"miscellaneous" is also fine for example, but an existence of such a
qualification would still be beneficial.

Regards,
Vasil Rangelov

-----Original Message-----
From: Vasil Rangelov [mailto:boen.robot@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:48 PM
To: 'public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org'
Subject: RE: New XProc editor's WG reflects latest proposals

OK. I like the new versioning story (24 October 2009... just in case that
text changes drastically in the future, I'd like to note the date) :)

Just a slight correction on it though. The text about unknown options should
also be added back. You know, the part about
"4. New options on known steps are ignored in the pipeline."

Since options can be set with p:with-option as well as attributes, the text
about unknown attributes doesn't exactly cover it.

Regards,
Vasil Rangelov

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Norman Walsh
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:46 PM
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Subject: New XProc editor's WG reflects latest proposals

Hi folks,

I just published my first attempt at addressing the recent proposed changes
to the XProc spec:

  http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec

I've also updated the revision markup draft, though that's getting a bit
cluttered.

Changes since the preceding editor's draft:

1. Replaced the versioning story
2. Changed default connections on p:with-option and p:with-param to p:empty
   if there's no default readable port
3. Relaxing the rules about primary parameter input ports (this item
   hasn't been discussed by the WG, so it's purely speculative on
   the part of the editor.)

Please review this draft and report any errors or omissions. 

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Fast. Cheap. Well. Pick two.
http://nwalsh.com/            |

Received on Sunday, 25 October 2009 16:27:27 UTC