- From: Toman, Vojtech <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:08:38 -0400
- To: XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
When I started drafting the errata, it quickly turned out that it would require changes (some of them rather substantial, like changing a definition) in six or seven sections (Steps, Step names, p:choose, p:when, p:otherwise, p:group, p:try, p:catch, ...). Regards, Vojtech -- Vojtech Toman Consultant Software Engineer EMC | Information Intelligence Group vojtech.toman@emc.com http://developer.emc.com/xmltech > -----Original Message----- > From: James Fuller [mailto:jim@webcomposite.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:45 PM > To: Alex Milowski > Cc: XProc WG > Subject: Re: ACTION A-220-04 > > agree with Alex, will add to v2 requirements doc so we dont forget. > > J > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> > wrote: > > 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 Thursday, 11 October 2012 11:09:23 UTC