- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:00:18 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 8/1/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say: > | I think this section needs to talk about the scope of pipeline type names in a > | pipeline library: say that each pipeline in a pipeline library must have a > | unique type, and talk about the scope of those pipeline names. A reference to > | another section that talks about this in detail would be sufficient. > > Hmmm. I changed the first paragraph of 3.2 to read: > > The scope of the names of step types is the pipeline. Each pipeline > processor has some number of built in step types and may declare > (directly, or by reference to an external library) additional step > types. All the step types in a pipeline must have unique names: it > is a static error (err:XS0036) if two declarations for the same step > type name appear in the same scope. > > I wonder if that helps. > > | The paragraph: > | > | The scope of option names is essentially the same as the scope of step > | names, with the following caveat: whereas step names must be unique, > | option names may be repeated. An option specified on a step shadows > | any specification that may already be in-scope. > | > | is pretty confusing. Since option names can be repeated, does that mean it's OK > | to do: > | > | <p:group> > | <p:option name="foo" ... /> > | <p:option name="foo" ... /> > | ... > | </p:group> Does your answer mean, we can do that ? Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 17:00:20 UTC