Re: Saxonica Comment 7 on XProc last-call draft, sections 1 and 2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> I'd be willing to leave the ability to pass non-string values as
> implementation defined, I think. With a dynamic error if you attempt
> to do so in an implementation that can't.

How would you be able to tell that the attempt was being made?

Coming late to this discussion, I think I strongly prefer the _status
quo_.  The bottom line is that XSLT and friends are a minority of the
step types, and their special needs have already seriously skewed the
architecture (w/o them, we wouldn't have parameters), and I don't want
that to happen again over multiple/computed inputs, which is what this
is really about.  We will have to address the multiple inputs question
for Vnext, and there are a number of more general solutions which will
work for _all_ step types*, not just XSLT etc.  I really don't want
multiple solutions in this space, so introducing a premature solution
for XSLT is just not a good idea in my book.

Sorry, live with it, is my preferred response.

ht

* At least three candidates: A resource manager; sets of named docs;
  reduce.
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHBPlskjnJixAXWBoRAvQsAJ9Q4GPhPE7E/ttIQSw4OV+yuwKBQQCfQHV3
r3oiun6fCF7+pETRRXSyYEQ=
=F+vX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 14:32:24 UTC