- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:46:26 +0000
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 2.8.3 "The XProc processor must support" --> "The XProc processor *must* support" 2.4 This is a _huge_ and complex section and completely derails the momentum of a reader who still hasn't gotten to the basic pipeline syntax. I think it worked better down in section 5 where it used to be. . . 3 The Note at the beginning of this section is quite bizarre -- what is it trying to tell us? Do we really need it? 3.1 associed --> associated 3.2 Maybe useful to add here something like "Step types, variables, options and parameters are named with QNames; steps and ports are named with NCNames". 3.7 "any other conformant XProc processor would produce" --> "would arise in the absence of the attribute"; "a conformant processor is required to signal" --> "would be signalled in the absence of the attribute" The final sentence is confusing at best and should probably be removed: being implementation-{defined,dependent} doesn't _ipso facto_ keep you from sinning in one of the two ways specified above. 4.1 "e.g., ones that are provided" --> "e.g. ones that contain an explicit subpipeline, or are provided" 4.1 No p:variable allowed? Ah, I see -- no p:variable allowed _anywhere_ :-). I take it the syntax hasn't been updated yet. . . I would vote for allowing p:variable in the prologue of any container, meta-container, p:pipeline or p:declare-step. 4.1 I think the duplication between this and p:declare-step is unnecessary. I would suggest removing * The third paragraph * Everything after the first para. after the tableau down through para which begins "If a step within the _subpipeline_ needs". 4.2 "If the iteration source for a p:for-each is an empty sequence, then" --> "If the iteration source for a p:for-each is an empty sequence, then the subpipeline is never run and" 4.2 "If the p:for-each has a primary output port and . . ." -- it's not clear from this whether the defaulting rule from the end of section 2.3 applies before this clause, as it were. Surely it is meant to, so I would suggest --> "If the p:for-each has a primary output port (explicit or supplied by default (see [ref. 2.3]) and" 4.3 "The p:viewport must contain a single, primary output port." Why is p:viewport different from p:for-each in this regard? Or rather, it's easy to read this as implying that every p:viewport must contain an _explicit_ p:output. Again, I presume that's not what's meant, so suggest --> "The p:viewport must have a single, primary output port, either declared explicitly or supplied by default (see [ref. 2.3])." 4.4.2 "effective boolean value is the guard expression" --> "effective boolean value is the guard" 4.6 (minor niggle): s/result/output/ throughout, perhaps? Compare 4.4 (which does have _one_ 'result', I admit :-( 4.7 We've given ourselves an upgrade path for adding new built-in/standard atomic steps, but we haven't done so for new compound steps. I'm not happy with my earlier 'hobby-horse' comment on the 'subpipeline' pseudo-production in section 2.1, either. I guess I'll send a separate message about this whole mess. . . ht - -- 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: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH39XCkjnJixAXWBoRAu5+AJ9TKEDtFapYxyRrGEsvBFcj05E1IwCdEBN9 pMUx8A6ztJYFdrISAbr0hts= =i0Po -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 14:47:06 UTC