Re: Spec progress

/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| Norm,
|
| A lot of good points in the document ....and a lot of points which
| raise some questions, but I keep them for telcon
|
| So for the moment, few remarks
|
| ==  Small typos ==
[...]
|
| == Group ==
| I was surprised to see that p:group is not in the list of core language constructs

Maybe it belongs there, but I'm not sure it has any core semantics at
the moment. Unless I've overlooked or forgotten something, it's a
purely syntactic wrapper.

| == Before, Ancestor, and al. ==
| 4.1.1 "Specified by source"
| <<an output port of some other step>> : Is it a will to let this sentense so vague ?
| Couldn't is better be <<an output port of some *before* step>>.
| You use later in the same paragraph <<ancestor steps>> which is most ambiguous.

Alas, it's not always a before step. On declare-output it's often an
after step. But I agree, it would be nice to make this a little less
vague.

| 4.2.2
| <<If a by source binding is used, the port selected must be an output port on an step which is not a descendant of the step on which the p:declare-input appears or it must be a port declared with p:declare-output on some ancestor of the step>>
| You say "not a descendant"....so a step which appear later in the document is ok ?

I'm not confident that we've got a good story on document order.
Maybe, since we don't have loops, its always possible to assert a
total order on the steps. Did we decide that we were going to impose
that constraint on authors? Perhaps we did...

| Again "on some ancestor" troubles me, because steps are siblings...

Yes. I was thinking only of the declare-output's on ancestors, but the
available ports probably comprise both ancestor::* and preceding::*
steps.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.