Re: Remarks on W3C Editor's Draft 24 January 2008 ( part III)

On Feb 8, 2008 7:31 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:

> / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> | Dear,
> |
> | In 2.3 Primary Inputs and Outputs
> |
> | Please precise explicitely that we cannot have more than one primary
> input
> | or more than one primary output
>
> Fixed.
>
> | Idem for 2.5 Parameters
> |
> | --
> |
> | s/If the pipeline declares another port named "parameters",/If the
> pipeline
> | declares another (non parameter) port named "parameters",/
> |
> | s/to parameters accepted by the p:pipeline is/to parameters accepted by
> the
> | p:pipeline or p:declare-step is/
> | s/The attribute xpath-version may be used on p:pipeline (or
> p:library)/The
> | attribute xpath-version may be used on p:pipeline or p:declare-step (or
> | p:library)/
>
> Fixed.
>
> | May be a complete checking of "p:pipeline" should be done to replace it
> by
> | "p:pipeline or p:declare-step"
>
> Yes. I thought I had...
>
> | [[
> |  that are visible to the step
> |  ]]
> |  I fear that visible is not defined
>
> Fixed, I think:
>
> <termdef xml:id="dt-readable-ports">The
> <firstterm>readable ports</firstterm> are the step name/port name
> pairs that are on steps in the same scope.</termdef>
>
> |  In 2.7 Environment
> |
> |  it is not clear of what happen in case of shadowed input or output port
> | names
>
> What do you mean by shadowed?


Ok brain cramp, I think I forgot that to reference a port you need a step
AND a port so even if two port have the same name, they have different step
names

But "visible" is still used everywhere without formal definition


>
>
> |  ---
> |  [[
> |  cannot determine will give the same result in XPath 1.0 that it would
> have
> | given if XPath 2.0 had been used
> |  ]]
> |  is it possible to point to a spec for this sentence ?
>
> Do you have a suggestion?


I fear I've none. May be
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#id-backwards-compatibility ?


>
> |  [[
> |  The XPath 2.0 functions and the
> |  ]]
> |  please put a reference to XPath 2.0 functions and Operators
> |  --
> |  Idem for "The XPath 2.0 functions."
>
> Fixed.
>
> | In 2.8.3.1 System Properties
> |
> | We should define that String for XPath 1.0 is xs:string for XPath 2.0
> | --
> | In 2.8.3.2 Step Available
> | Boolean should refer to xs:boolean for XPath 2.0
> | --
> | Integer should be defined (as number for XPath 1.0 and xs:integer for
> XPath
> | 2.0)
>
> Fixed.
>
> | This sentence
> | [[
> | All the step types in a pipeline must have unique names: it is a static
> | error (err:XS0036) if any step type name is built-in and/or declared or
> | defined more than once in the same scope.
> | ]]
> |
> | is a bit troublesome : what is "in the same scope" ? it is clear that
> there
> | is a scope for "step names" but not clear for "step types".
>
> The beginning of 3.2, "The scope of the names of the step types is..."
> attempts to explain that. Is it unclear, or do you think it's incorrect?


No I just think it should be forward referenced here

>
>
>                                        Be seeing you,
>                                          norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A wonder is often expressed that the
> http://nwalsh.com/            | greatest criminals look like other men.
>                              | The reason is that *they are like other
>                              | men in many respects.*-- Hazlitt
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €