W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > December 2006

Re: Foreach, Viewport and Choose and another way to default

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:57:39 +0100
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0612220557w1d683a1cm3e9b1a55be53d6bc@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: "XProc WG" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

On 12/22/06, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>
> Mohamed wrote:
> > It seems in those cases that we add an unneeded surrounder wrapper
> > because we don't care about the name
>
> That's true, but it's still useful to have a wrapper element in case you
> want to (easily) construct a sequence of documents from different sources.
>
> Instead, I think that we should say that <p:input> within <p:for-each>,
> <p:viewport> and <p:choose> does not have a port attribute (i.e. doesn't
> have a name). (I don't think we want people to reference that input
> anyway, particularly as they're going to get very confused between the
> for-each/viewport "source" and "current" ports.)

Thanks for the reformulation and I agree with it and your point of view

But I should add that it that case, it would be better to have a
special wrapper without name (p:context) instead of disallowing
attribute in those cases (which reintroduce co-constraints)

What do you think about p:context for p:choose/p:when/p:foreach/p:viewport  ?

p:context would not have a name attribute and could have the same
content as an p:input

Mohamed

>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeni
> --
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
>
>


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Friday, 22 December 2006 13:57:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:49 GMT