- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:20:52 +0100
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: "XProc Dev" <xproc-dev@w3.org>
thx, I agree we need a new error ... cheers, Jim On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > "James Fuller" <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> writes: > >> consider the following pipeline >> >> <p:pipeline name="pipeline" >> xmlns:p="http://www.w3.org/ns/xproc"> >> >> <!-- should not evaluate this declare-step //--> >> <p:declare-step name="test1" type="p:identity"> >> <p:input port="source" sequence="true"/> >> <p:output port="result" sequence="true"/> >> <p:count/> >> </p:declare-step> >> >> <p:identity/> >> >> </p:pipeline> >> >> should this not throw an error ? perhaps err:XS0002 or > > It could throw err:XS0002, but I think we need a new error because > an attempt to declare "p:my-new-step" should also fail. > > In fact, the spec already forbids it: > > Except as described in Section 2.13, "Versioning Considerations", > the XProc namespace must not be used in the type of steps. Neither > users nor implementers may define additional steps in the XProc > namespace. > > but through editorial carelessness, I seem to have forgotten to > explicitly make it a static error. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | In a universe of electrons and selfish > http://nwalsh.com/ | genes, blind physical forces and > | genetic replication, some people are > | going to get hurt, other people are > | going to get lucky, and you won't find > | any rhyme or reason in it, nor any > | justice.--Richard Dawkins >
Received on Thursday, 11 December 2008 15:21:36 UTC