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

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh 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.
|
| Not really :) It focuses on the step types in a (single) pipeline
| rather than the step types in a pipeline *library*. Perhaps we can say
| (not necessarily in this section) that a pipeline document with a
| <p:pipeline> document element is equivalent to a <p:pipeline-library>
| with all <p:import>s and <p:declare-step>s (and so on) moved into the
| <p:pipeline-library>, and otherwise containing that (single)
| <p:pipeline>. Then every pipeline document can be considered a
| pipeline library, and we can say:

That's not immediately appealing.

Is this better:

   The scope of the names of step types is the union of all the pipelines
   and pipeline libraries available. Each pipeline...

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything in the universe goes by
http://nwalsh.com/            | indirection. There are no straight
                              | lines.-- Emerson