W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: More defaulting

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:41:48 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87zm4q26zn.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
| On 4/24/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
|>
|> Consider:
|>
|> <p:serialize>
|>   <p:option name="href" value="/tmp/out.xml"/>
|>   <p:option name="method" value="html"/>
|> </p:serialize>
|>
|> I wonder if we should allow that to be written as:
|>
|> <p:serialize href="/tmp/out.xml" method="html"/>
|
| I would love to be able to do that!!!
|
| I wonder if we should also allow
|>
|>   <p:option name="href" value="/tmp/out.xml"/>
|>
|> to be expressed as
|>
|>   <p:option href="/tmp/out.xml"/>
|
| Yes.
|
| I have mixed feelings about both of these, but I find myself doing the
|> latter by accident sometimes and wishing for the former. Now that we
|> have options and parameters clearly distinct, it doesn't seem totally
|> unreasonable to do this.
|>
|> In both cases, I would expect the attribute values to be taken literally.
|> If you want a select, you have to do it the long way:
|>
|>   <p:option name="href" select="concat($basedir,'foo.html')"/>
|
| Sure.

Everyone else, please weigh in!

| BTW, what is the 'p:serialize' step ?  Do you mean 'p:store' or your
| proposed
| XSLT 2.0 serialization step ?

I'm not sure. I consider the whole nexus of names around
parse/store/serialize/escape-markup/unescape-markup to be
up in the air.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If God created us in his own image, we
http://nwalsh.com/            | have more than reciprocated.-- Voltaire

Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 21:41:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:50 GMT