- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:49:42 +0100 (BST)
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> | I think this still doesn't cover everything. Surely the body of a > | pipeline in a library can see the other steps and pipelines declared > | in the library that contains it. > Yes. And the more I think about it, the more I think maybe we really > do want a single, global scope for step type names. I'm dubious about this. It means that importing a library in different contexts has different results. > I think the only negative consequence of this decision is that two > pipelines in a pipeline library that each import a different > definition for a step type will cause an error Why does only importing a *different* definition cause an error? Are you proposing adding a rule that requires definitions to be compared to see if they are the same? I recommend sticking to what I think you originally intended, which I will describe as: The step and pipeline types visible in a pipeline or library are: - the standard built-in types; - any implementation-provided types; - the types visible in any library that is imported; - the step types declared in the pipeline or library - for a pipeline, the pipeline itself - for a library, any pipelines defined in it. -- Richard
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 21:50:48 UTC