Re: XProc Editors Draft 2007-07-19: Appendix A.1 Comments

Innovimax SARL wrote:
> On 7/24/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>> Innovimax SARL wrote:
>> > On 7/23/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>> >> A.1.3 Equal: The fail-if-not-equal option hasn't been described. Why
>> >> return "1" or "0" rather than the more human-readable "true" or 
>> "false"?
>> >
>> > I think it match directly boolean() of XPath, isn'it ?
>>
>> The string value of boolean true is "true". The string value of boolean
>> false is "false". Only if you first convert the boolean to a number do
>> you get the strings "0" and "1".
> 
> yes but every where else we use "yes/no"
> that's why I found less confusing "0/1" for boolean à la XPath and
> yes/no boolean à la XSLT

But 0/1 isn't boolean a la XPath (true/false) is. I would be happy with 
yes/no instead, since that's what we've used elsewhere. It's just 0/1 
that I find objectionable.

> may be we should take a look at XQuery Update
> -- your proposal --
> 3.1.1 upd:insertBefore
> 3.1.2 upd:insertAfter
> -- /your proposal
> 
> 3.1.3 upd:insertInto (we don't need this one)
> 
> -- the status quo --
> 3.1.4 upd:insertIntoAsFirst
> 3.1.5 upd:insertIntoAsLast
> -- /the status quo --
> 
> 3.1.6 upd:insertAttributes (this one is A.1.15 Set Attributes)
> 
> may be we should just provide both
> 
> <p:option name="position" default="as-first" />
> and allowed values "as-first", "as-last", "after", "before"

You're right: I think all four options would be useful. I'd have 
position be "first-child", "last-child", "after" and "before". I'm not 
sure there's an obvious default, which makes me think that it should be 
a required option.

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com

Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 08:11:47 UTC