Re: Uncle! New alternate draft [first set of comments]

Hash: SHA1

SotD: Needs to be brought up to date. . .

1, just after Figure 1: "list of W3C XML Schemas" -> "sequence of W3C
                        XML Schema documents"

Example 2  Why not use p:pipeline and get rid of the source and result

Example 3  Leave step names out?  They're not doing anything . . . You
           switch to p:pipeline here, w/o any explanation: I
           definitely now think the switch should come earlier, with
           something like "For pipelines with one input and one
           output, p:pipeline can be used instead of p:declare-step,
           and input and output declarations are provided by default."

2.         (last para before 2.1) Maybe add something along the lines
           of "The pattern of connections between steps will not
           always completely determine their order of evaluation: the
           evaluation order of steps not connected to one another is

2.1        [Climbs back on old hobby-horse] The pseudo-production for
	   subpipeline contains 'pfx:other-step', which links to a
	   section labelled 'pfx:other-atomic-step'.  Shouldn't the
	   production have 'p:standard-step|pfx:user-pipeline, and both
	   link tableaux at the top of 4.7, which should be called
	   *Atomic Steps*, and should begin "Other steps are specified
	   by elements that occur as _contained steps_, invoking either
	   standard (built-in) steps or user-defined pipelines:"
	   followed by two tableaux, one for pfx:user-pipeline and one
	   for p:standard-step, each otherwise the same as the existing
	   pfx:other-atomic-step.  (Other comments about 4.7 below)

2.1        After the para after the pseudo-production, how about "On
           the other hand, p:user-pipelines are treated as
           atomic---although a pipeline _definition contains a
           subpipeline, a step which invokes a user-defined pipeline
           does not."

           "wrappers around different pipelines" -> "wrappers around different subpipelines"

2.1.1      I'm still not happy with when/choose/catch having names.
           This would appear to allow me to write e.g.

            <p:when name="never" test="1=0">
             <p:output name="result"/>
              <p:pipe step="never" port="result"/>
            . . .


          but that's clearly incoherent.  The situation wrt how the
          containers/pseudo-steps interact with the environment rules
          needs to be clarified.  I think we can't maintain the
          current attempt to shoehorn them into a strict
          step/step-container duality.

- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail:
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)


Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 14:14:41 UTC