RE: Updated errata

Hi Norm,

Thanks for doing this. A couple of comments:

S04: "After a branch is selected, it is evaluated as if it was a subpipeline and only it had been present."

Since the grammar for the branches (p:when, p:otherwise) says that they contain a subpipeline, can't we just say something along the lines:

"After a branch is selected, the subpipeline that it contains is evaluated as if only that branch had been present."


S02: " is a static error (err:XS0018) to specify an invocation without specifying a value for a required option."

Perhaps "... to specify an invocation without providing a value" would read better? (Is "specifying an invocation" a commonly used phrase? It looks really creative to my non-English eyes. :-)


E07: Sorry, I forgot what the main motivation for adding "Any one of the compound step's readable ports." was. Was it to allow pipelines such as the following?

<p:identity name="id"/>
  <p:output port="result">
    <p:pipe step="id" port="result"/>


Vojtech Toman
Consultant Software Engineer
EMC | Information Intelligence Group

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Walsh []
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 4:08 PM
> To:
> Subject: Updated errata
> Hi folks,
> I decided to spend the hour we weren't having the call working on the errata
> document:
> xproc10/10errata/proposed.html
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> --
> Norman Walsh
> Lead Engineer
> MarkLogic Corporation
> Phone: +1 512 761 6676

Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 15:47:46 UTC