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

Norman Walsh wrote:
> / 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...

No, because pipeline libraries don't have names that are step types.

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com

Received on Saturday, 4 August 2007 07:42:53 UTC