- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 10:53:14 +0200
- To: XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Dear all, Following a discussion that has appeared on public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org by our fellow Norm [[ If the pipeline author does not provide an explicit name, the processor manufactures a default name. All default names are of the form “!1.m.n…” where “m” is the position (in the sense of counting sibling elements) of the step's highest ancestor element within the pipeline document or library which contains it, “n” is the position of the next-highest ancestor, and so on, including both steps and non-step wrappers. For example, consider the pipeline in Example 3, “A validate and transform pipeline”. The p:pipeline step has no name, so it gets the default name “!1”; the p:choose gets the name “!1.1”; the first p:when gets the name “!1.1.1”; the p:otherwise gets the name “!1.1.2”, etc. If the p:choose had had a name, it would not have received a default name, but it would still have been counted and its first p:when would still have been “!1.1.1”. ]] This sentence suggests that p:when and p:otherwise could get a name, which is obviously not true (in this case the name is the one of the p:choose so this example should be fixed, but it clearly illustrate the inconsistency) But for p:try, we made another choice (which lead Norm to question and more specifically lead Henry to forbid the @name on p:catch) We said the name are the one that are on the p:group and p:catch Are we consistent here, two naming strategies for what looks like same compound building blocks ? 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 €
Received on Sunday, 20 May 2012 08:53:45 UTC