- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:35:50 +0200
- To: "Alex Milowski" <alex@milowski.org>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 7/18/07, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote: > > On 7/18/07, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think we should at least say that the resolution of name would be > > consistent through all the pipeline (I say the resolution, not the > > result of the get) > > How can we govern what happens inside a custom step ? May be we can let custom step aside for a moment, and try to answer that question for step already in the spec ? Then we will see if there is a common possible resolution that could be suggested to "custom step designers" > > > > > That means : > > > > If I have a "toto.xml" in the xinclude and a "toto.xml" in the in a > > p:document and a "toto.xml" in the doc() function of my xslt what can > > I expect ? > > That's why I had an "xinclude from sequence" step in our library. We removed > that awhile ago. I'm not sure "xinclude from sequence" would answer to question. It will just give a local workaround for xinclude > > -- > --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 > > -- 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 Wednesday, 18 July 2007 16:35:58 UTC