- From: John Lumley <john@saxonica.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 13:47:23 +0100
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- Cc: EXPath CG <public-expath@w3.org>, John Lumley <john@johnlumley.net>
You're right - and whilst I checked there was a test case that covered it, I neglected to check the order. So: "binary concatenation of $extra and $in" is the correct semantics - worth also adding "i.e. equivalent to bin:join(($extra,$in))" Sent from my iPad On 21 Sep 2013, at 13:37, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: > On 21.9.2013 11:51, John Lumley wrote: >> The specification, differential markup and xml definition can be found at: > > Hi, kudos to John for moving specification into this stage. > > John, small question related to last time clarification made in draft. > To definition of insert-before > (http://expath.org/spec/binary/20130920#insert-before) you have added: > > "If $offset eq 0 the result is the binary concatenation of $in and $extra." > > My feeling is that in this case $extra should be put in front of $in in > order to be consistent of behaviour when $offset is greater then 0. if > you share this view then $in and $extra should be exchanged in the > sentence, or we can explicitly say that in this case it is equivalent of > bin:join(($extra, $in)). > > Jirka > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Professional XML consulting and training services > DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 rep. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Bringing you XML Prague conference http://xmlprague.cz > ------------------------------------------------------------------ >
Received on Saturday, 21 September 2013 12:47:47 UTC