Re: XProc Editors Draft 2007-07-19: Section 3.2 Comments

/ "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| 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 ?

No, I said

  ...The names of all of the options specified on a step must be
  unique....

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | During the first period of a man's life
http://nwalsh.com/            | the greatest danger is: not to take the
                              | risk.-- Kierkegaard