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 14:42:50 -0700
Message-ID: <28d56ece0708131442nb20e946k6488acad43a4ae40@mail.gmail.com>
To: "XProc WG" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>

On 8/13/07, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

I was not suggesting we add "true/false" to option values.  Only asking
what the value of the c:result element should be for p:equals.  If we wanted
to be totally consistent, we'd use the literals "yes" and "no".


-- 
--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 21:42:56 GMT

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