- From: Romain Deltour <rdeltour@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:03:45 +0200
- To: XProc Comments <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
I think its implied by lack of any special mention in 4.8 "Extension steps": "If the relevant step declaration has a subpipeline, then that step runs the declared subpipeline. These steps are user- or implementation- defined extensions. Pipelines can refer to themselves (recursion is allowed), to pipelines defined in imported libraries, and to other pipelines in the same library if they are in a library." based on that paragraph I would also think your example is valid. Also, note the sentence in 2.12 "Security considerations": "Steps in a pipeline may call themselves recursively which could result in pipelines which will never terminate." This may be amended to mention the forward-reference scenario. Romain. Le 7 oct. 11 à 15:43, Norman Walsh a écrit : > "vojtech.toman@emc.com" <vojtech.toman@emc.com> writes: >> Yes, I think it is valid and there is nothing wrong with it. Except >> that it uses infinite recursion. But that is a programming error, not >> different from: >> >> <p:declare-step type="test:step" name="test-step"> >> <p:input port="source" sequence="true"/> >> <p:output port="result"/> >> <test:step/> >> </p:declare-step> > > So you both intepret the spec as allowing forward references. I think > that's consistent with what we say about recursive imports, but I > can't actually find anywhere in the spec that says that. > > For what it's worth, this is precisely why XML Calabash fails the > import-007 test. I assume that I will have seen declarations for each > step before I encounter a use of that step. Or rather, I assert > err:XS0044 id I haven't. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh > Lead Engineer > MarkLogic Corporation > Phone: +1 413 624 6676 > www.marklogic.com
Received on Friday, 7 October 2011 14:04:26 UTC