Re: ACTION A-220-04

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Toman, Vojtech <vojtech.toman@emc.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I took a deeper look at ACTION A-220-04
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2012Jul/0002.html).
>
> It turns out to be more interesting than it seemed at the first glance. The main
> issue is that on one hand we say that p:when/p:otherwise are just wrappers and
> not steps, yet at the same time we seem to assume that they behave as compound
> steps ("If a compound step has no declared outputs and the last step in its
> subpipeline has an unconnected primary output, ..." etc.). The same applies to
> p:group/p:catch in p:try.
>
> There are two ways of fixing this (both of them require more or less the same
> amount of changes, but have different implications):
>
> 1. Make p:when/p:otherwise in p:choose and p:group/p:catch in p:try compound
>    steps and get rid of the notion "non-step wrapper". This might require some
>    tweaks here and there (the definition of what "container" meens for
>    multi-container steps would have to change), but I think it could work.

I prefer this approach.  I think it makes things more uniform.

I am concerned about the scope of such a change.  It feels like
something we should fix in 2.0 and attempt to clarify, if possible, in
the errata.  Whether we can fix it in an errata is unclear to me right
now.

-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics

Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 16:49:07 UTC