- 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