- 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