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

Re: Remarks on W3C Editor's Draft 6 August 2007

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:52:53 -0700
Message-ID: <28d56ece0708131252r2e0d6d25r4256124735166f83@mail.gmail.com>
To: "XProc WG" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

On 8/8/07, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> s/A.2.1 Add Attributes/A.2.1 Add Attribute/
>
> Please specify also the XPath Context for the match option
>
> == boolean ==
>
> Please fix the inconsistencies between yes/true/no/false everywhere
> and and clarify this position for p:equal (which currently generates
> 0/1)

All options that are booleans use 'yes' and 'no'.  Only XPath expression
evaluations use 'true' and 'false' as logical values.

p:equal does need to be clarified as to what is in the c:result
element.

"yes" and "no" or "true" or "false" ?

Opinions anyone?

>
> == Http request ==
> Was it the consensus to remove all the options ?
>

No.  It is missing the serialization options.  I just fixed that.


> In A.2.11 Insert
>
> The declaration of the step and the text seems to contradict on the
> fact to have a default value for "position"

Fixed as specified in the last e-mail.

>
> In A.2.14 Make Absolute URIs
>
> Please precise what happen if the string to absolutize is not a valid URI

Right now we say:

"If the initial URI is not valid, or if the document has no base URI,
the results are implementation dependent"

We could fail as there is a correct answer for generic URI values.


-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 20:04:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:54 GMT