- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:03:43 +0100
- To: "XProc WG" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <546c6c1c0801251403n34a7dfb9h8c7c52e868d64130@mail.gmail.com>
Dear, The Abstract says [[ An XML Pipeline specifies a sequence of operations to be performed on **one or more** XML documents. Pipelines generally accept **one or more** XML documents as input and produce **one or more** XML documents as output. Pipelines are made up of simple steps which perform atomic operations on XML documents and constructs similar to conditionals, **loops** and exception handlers which control which steps are executed. ]] emphasis is mine But later in 1 Introduction we find [[ An XML Pipeline specifies a sequence of operations to be performed on a collection of XML input documents. Pipelines take **zero or more** XML documents as their input and produce **zero or more** XML documents as their output. ]] Please do hamonize them Furthermore, I dislike the word "loops" in the abstract. Later in the spec it is referenced as "iterations" which is more appropriate. --- [[ The inputs to a step come from the web, from the pipeline document, from the inputs to the pipeline itself, or from the outputs of other steps in the pipeline. The outputs from a step are consumed by other steps, are outputs of the pipeline as a whole, or are discarded. ]] isn't it more "inputs of" instead of "inputs to" ? -- To be consistent with the Figure 1, please replace "Validate" by "Validate with XML Schema" in the text after the figure. -- In 2.1 Steps [[ [Definition: A step is the basic computational unit of a pipeline.] A typical step has some number of inputs, from which it receives XML documents to process, some number of outputs, to which it sends XML document results, and may have options and/or parameters. ]] Please replace "some number of" by a more precise "zero or more" isn't the "may" in "may have" an RFC one ? -- s/a Validate with XML Schema step validates/a Validate-with-xml-schema step validates/ -- For "implementations may provide others as well", RFC may (After reading a bit more of the spec, I think a lot more may and must should RFC'ied, but I fear I have no idea of what the rule of thumbs are...) -- After [[ It is not an error to connect a port that is declared to produce a sequence of documents to a port that is declared to accept only a single document. It is, however, an error if the former step actually produces more than one document at run time. ]] Please add that the reverse is also not an error, say [[ It is not an error to connect a port that is declared to produce a single document to a port that is declared to accept only a sequence of documents. The sequence of one document and a single document are considered the same. ]] -- [[ A step matches its signature if and only if it specifies an input for each declared input, ]] I don't think this is true, since we can omit non primary inputs -- s/URIs.Whether/URIs. Whether/ To be continued... Mohamed -- 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 €
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 22:03:54 UTC