Re: Comments on August 22 editors' draft from section 2.8 through 4.2

/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| 2.8
|  "XPath processor" --> "XProc processor"

Fixed.

| 2.8.3.1
|   "Four aspects" --> "various aspects"

Fixed.

| 3.2
|   "Step types are:" needs a fourth bullet:
|
|    * Built-in as extensions by a particular processor

Fixed.

|    "it is a static error (err:XS0036) if any step type name appears
|     more than once in the same scope"
|   -->
|
|    "it is a static error (err:XS0036) if any step type name is
|     built-in and/or declared or defined more than once in the same
|     scope"

Ok.

|    "the names of its ancestors; and" --> "the names of its ancestors and"
|      (or, if you must, "the names of its ancestors, and", but surely
|       no ;)

Yeah.

| 3.6
|
|   "...that library. It is a static error (err:XS0015) to specify the
|    XProc namespace, the namespace of any imported p:pipeline, or any
|    namespace in which an atomic step has been declared as an ignored
|    namespace."
|
|    -->
|
|   "...that library.
|
|   "It is a static error (err:XS0015) to specify the XProc namespace,
|    the namespace of any imported p:pipeline, or any namespace in which
|    an atomic step is declared as an ignored namespace."
|
|    [note substantive changes as well as para break]

I reworded it a little more:

<para><error code="S0015">It is a <glossterm>static error</glossterm>
to specify as an ignored namespace the XProc namespace,
the namespace of any imported <tag>p:pipeline</tag>,
or any namespace in which an <glossterm>atomic step</glossterm> is
<link linkend="p.declare-step">declared</link>.</error>
</para>

| 3.8
|
|   I still think it would be helpful to clarify the overall situation
|   wrt extensions and ignored elements, by adding a para. along the
|   following lines at the end of this section:
|
|    "It follows from the above that the decision tree for elements in
|     subpipelines is:
|
|     1) in XProc namespace?
|        1a) names a built-in compound step?
|            Check against grammar, interpret per spec.
|        1b) names a built-in atomic step?
|            Check against grammar and built-in declaration, interpret
|            per spec.
|     2) names a declared step type?
|        Check against grammar and user-supplied type declaration,
|        interpret per spec.
|     3) names a defined pipeline?
|        Check against pipeline definition, interpret per spec.
|     4) in ignorable namespace?
|        4a) Known extension?
|            Process as appropriate.
|        4b) Otherwise
|            Ignore.
|     5) otherwise
|        Error."

Ok. Reworded slightly.

| 4.2
|
|   "When a pipeline needs to process a sequence of documents using a
|    subpipeline that begins with a step that only accepts a single
|    document, the p:for-each construct can be used as a wrapper around
|    the step that accepts only a single document."
|
|     -->
|
|   "When a pipeline needs to process a sequence of documents using a
|    step that only accepts a single document, the p:for-each construct
|    can be used as a wrapper around that step."

I had that originally. Someone argued that that made it sound like
a for-each could only contain a single step.

|  together with
|
|   "If the subpipeline is connected to one or more output ports on the
|    p:for-each, what appears on each of those ports is the sequence of
|    documents that is the concatenation of the sequence produced by
|    each iteration of the loop."
|
|  -->
|
|   "If the p:for-each has one or more output ports, what appears on
|    each of those ports is the sequence of documents that is the
|    concatenation of the sequence produced by each iteration of the
|    loop on the port to which it is connected."

Ok.

| 4.2.1
|
|   Cross-reference p:iteration-position and p:iteration-size to section
|   2.8.3.

Done.

|   "in the case where no XPath expression that must be evaluated by
|    the processor makes any reference to these functions, these values
|    do not actually have to be calculated"
|
|  -->
|
|   "in the case where no XPath expression that must be evaluated by
|    the processor makes any reference to p:iteration-size, its value
|    does not actually have to be calculated"

Ok.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The way to get things done is not to
http://nwalsh.com/            | mind who gets the credit of doing
                              | them.--Benjamin Jowett