RE: example given in section 2.1.1, need clarification

• From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
• Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:40:53 -0400
• To: <xproc-dev@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <6E216CCE0679B5489A61125D0EFEC7870ED13920@CORPUSMX10A.corp.emc.com>

> Hello everyone,
> 
> I don't understand the example given in section "2.1.1 Step 
> names". Why 
> does the p:choose get the name "!1.2" ? "!1.1" seems to be 
> more coherent.

I think you are right and p:choose should indeed get the name "!1.1".
The example pipeline used to look different in the older versions of the
spec, and the text in section 2.1.1 should be updated to be in-sync
again.

Regards,
Vojtech

Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 09:47:15 UTC