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

Re: XProc Editors Draft 2007-07-19: Section 4.2 Comments

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:04:22 +0100
Message-ID: <46B2D376.2060402@jenitennison.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Norman Walsh wrote:
> At one point we were going to use context-position and context-size.
> Then we decided that we couldn't and switched to p:iteration-count()
> instead of context size.
> 
> Don't we also need a p:iteration-size() or something?

Uh. Wasn't the whole reason behind not having position() and last() that 
we didn't want to support last() and so we had to introduce an extension 
function to give an iteration number rather than the built-in XPath 
mechanisms?

In other words, if you introduce p:iteration-size() as well as 
p:iteration-count() then we've effectively got a context size and 
position and we may as well call them the standard names (last() and 
position()).

I'm not (at all) against it (quite the opposite), just thought we'd 
resolved this.

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 07:08:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:53 GMT