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: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:57:16 +0100
Message-ID: <46A5BEEC.7080407@jenitennison.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Innovimax SARL wrote:
> 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..."/>

That's a very good point, and argues for using true/false for all 
boolean options.

(Because <p:option name="fail-if-not-equal" select="false()" /> will 
give the fail-if-not-equal option the value 'false', not '0'.)

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 08:57:21 GMT

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