RE: p:declare-step | p:import in p:declare-step

> 
> > / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> > | let's say that we have (p:declare-step[1] | p:import[2]) in
> > | p:declare-step[3]
> > |
> > | if [3] is an atomic step (non sub-pipeline declared), what 
> > do mean a [1] ?
> > | in case [1] is a declaration of atomic step ? in case [1] 
> > is a declaration
> > | of a pipeline ?
> > |
> > | and what about having [2] in [3] when [3] is an atomic step ?
> > 
> > Bleh. I think it was a mistake to put import and declare-step in the
> > signature. I think we should change p:declare-step to:
> > 
> > <p:declare-step
> >   name? = NCName
> >   type? = QName
> >   psvi-required? = boolean
> >   xpath-version? = string>
> >     (p:input |
> >      p:output |
> >      p:option |
> >      p:log |
> >      p:serialization)*,
> >    ((p:import | p:declare-step)*,
> >     subpipeline)?
> > </p:declare-step>
> > 
> > That is: you should only be able to use p:import and 
> > p:declare-step when
> > you're defining a pipeline.
> > 
> 
> But that would mean that p:pipeline would no longer be translatable to
> p:declare-step...
> 

Sorry, ignore me, I should have read your post more carefully.

Vojtech

Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 13:04:07 UTC