Re: Improve XProc suitability for localization

/ Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> was heard to say:
| I understand that using content of p:error element for description
| instead of attribute would cause inconsistency in syntax -- all other
| options in XProc are specified as attributes. So change we are
| requesting is not an easy one. But ITS WG will be pleased if you can
| consider this and decide whether accommodating non-Latin languages can
| be worth small syntax inconsistency.

I think you're right. Making the description an option is a
convenience for authors, but only authors using "western" languages, I
suppose.

I suggest we change the p:error step so that the description comes
From an input. That also makes it more consistent with errors from other
steps which might be structured.

So 

<p:error name="bad-document" xmlns:my="http://www.example.org/error">
   <p:option name="code" value="my:unk12">
   <p:option name="description" value="The document element is unknown."/>
</p:error>

becomes

<p:error name="bad-document" xmlns:my="http://www.example.org/error">
   <p:input port="source">
     <XXX:errors>
       <p:inline>The document element is unknown.</p:inline>
     </XXX:errors>
   </p:inline>
   <p:option name="code" value="my:unk12">
</p:error>

It's unfortunate that the extra wrapper element is necessary (to make the
document WF) but it's probably worth living with anyway.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Some people tell you you should not
http://nwalsh.com/            | drink claret after strawberries. They
                              | are wrong.--William Maginn