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: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:23:17 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0708131423p53fab993j255153ae0b30ea91@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alex Milowski" <alex@milowski.org>
Cc: "XProc WG" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

On 8/13/07, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote:
>
> 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?


It seems this issue was already raised and solved

The problem is that everywhere we have an option which need to have a
boolean value, it's just a pain to make it work with yes/no
So yes/no and adding true/false seems just good to me


>
> >
> > == 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.

"URI is valid" means for me that it uses allowed characters in URI

I can now see why you want to make it implementation dependent to
allow tools to make URI fixup before. So status quo is ok now for me
Sorry for the noise.


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 21:23:22 GMT

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