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

Norman Walsh wrote:
> / 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.

That still reads weirdly to me. What about:

   "When a pipeline needs to process a sequence of documents using a
    subpipeline that only processes a single document, the p:for-each
    construct can be used as a wrapper around that subpipeline."

Perhaps Henry will still object that this implies there's a subpipeline 
already identified. I don't think it implies that (except that there 
*is* a subpipeline kinda "already identified" in the author's head -- 
presumably they know what they want to do with the documents...).

Cheers,

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

Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 18:23:08 UTC