- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:15:23 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87lkd65fis.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say: | Another few editorial comments. I think I've addressed these, too. | It's not clear to me whether a pipeline is an atomic step or a compound step. | From the point of view of the pipeline invoking it, it's an atomic step, but | from inside the pipeline it's a compound step, right? | | In the description of "ports" (third from last paragraph), it's not clear | whether all port (inputs and outputs) must be uniquely named, or whether inputs | must be uniquely named and outputs must be uniquely named. A statement like "no | port can have the same name as another port on the same step" would perhaps | clarify things. | | Final paragraph: "Steps may have access to any number of parameters, all with | unique names." I think it's possible to have two parameter ports, each of which | is passed a parameter called 'foo'. So parameters don't have to have unique | names, although the parameters on a particular parameter port do have to have | unique names. I think this paragraph needs rewording to something like: | | "Steps have parameter ports, on which parameters can be passed. The | parameters passed on a particular parameter port must be uniquely | named. A step can have zero parameter ports, and each parameter port | can have zero parameters passed on it." | | I have a feeling that this section is mixing the concepts of "step" and "step | type" fairly freely, but I can't put my finger on any particular instance where | this causes real confusion. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Graduate school is where you learn to http://nwalsh.com/ | call a spade a leveraged | tactile-feedback geomass delivery | system.--Martha Koester
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 09:15:44 UTC