- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:19:03 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Norman Walsh writes: > | 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. Hmmm, I see. Unfortunately the current wording reads as if there's a delimited subpipeline already identified. How about "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 (and as many of its following siblings as required)." ht - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFG1ASnkjnJixAXWBoRAs64AJ9ZihSy7nYC3G6BvzxATSHCSYce/ACfYq6H wIPgjcIsTL6BLkpwJE57gEE= =DIJn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 11:19:38 UTC