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:
| 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)."

Ok by me.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | We have fewer friends than we imagine,
http://nwalsh.com/            | but more than we know.--Hugo Von
                              | Hofmannsthal