Re: Proposal for p:variable

/ Innovimax SARL <> was heard to say:
| Ok digging through I find some problems I see at first glance :
| It is said
| [[ The p:documentation<>element
| is not shown, but it is allowed anywhere. ]]
| but it is explicitely shown in the production of sub-pipeline
| Please remove it from there, it is confusing
| -----
| Please do the same for p:pipeinfo (I mean when the FIXME will be filled)

Fair enough.

| One point I'm doing most of the time is documenting an input, and I want, if
| I remove the input, that the documentation will be considerate as no more
| accurate
| I propose for that purpose, to add to p:documentation an new attribute
| @refid which should refer to the value of an @xml:id attribute which provide
| the ability to properly document pipeline and to have a security in case, I
| suppress the element I was documenting (then the @refid would point to
| nothing) which could be given as a warning by an XProc processor in a
| interoperable way

Isn't it sufficient to put the p:documentation inside the p:input that
you're documenting?

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <> | Old age is the most unexpected of all            | the things that happen to a man.--
                              | Trotsky

Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2008 14:27:34 UTC