Re: Proposal for p:variable

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:

> / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> | Ok digging through I find some problems I see at first glance :
> |
> | It is said
> |
> | [[ The p:documentation<
> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#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?


Yes it is sufficient ! Was mixing p:inline and p:input in my head
Thanks !

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 €