- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:36:01 -0500
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
> Folks, > > I've published a CR draft in the usual place: > > http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html > > A diff between this draft and the Last Call draft will follow shortly. > > I think it's pubrules clean, so I don't plan to do any more tinkering > with it beyond moving it into a staging directory for the web master. > > Reports of typos and silly grammatical mistakes most welcome. > Suggestions for substantive changes, less so :-) > > Be seeing you, > norm Great news, thanks for all the work! Today I found two small things: 5.1.2 says: "If a parameter input port on a ***p:pipeline*** is not bound, it is treated as if it was bound to an automatically created p:sink step. In other words, if a ***p:pipeline*** does not contain any steps that have parameter input ports, ..." Shouldn't the text use "pipeline which contains the step" instead of p:pipeline? The containing pipeline can be represented also by p:declare-step, not only p:pipeline, so the text may be misleading that this behavior applies only to p:pipeline. I am also wondering: how can anything be bound (be it only formally) to p:sink which has no output ports? - 5.1.2/Example 10 says: "This p:pipeline declares that it accepts parameters." The pipeline contains no parameter input port, so I think we should remove the sentence. Regards, Vojtech
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 10:36:47 UTC