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

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

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:20:43 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0707240120m265192a9ud45d376d02ca20eb@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

On 7/24/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>
> 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  la XPath and
> > yes/no boolean  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.

Hum...but how would you generate the value yes/no with XPath 1.0 ?

<p:option name="fail-if-not-equal" select="...something evaluated as
boolean..."/>


> > 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.

Agreed

Mohamed
-- 
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 Tuesday, 24 July 2007 08:20:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:53 GMT