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

Re: can we have last() having a consistent value ?

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:53:15 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5bejkpflys.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> I think all of the following proposals are entirely rational and none
> of them lead to destruction:
>
> 1. Set last() = position() and explain to users that that's the way
>    it works in V1.

I'm a bit unhappy with this, because as Richard observed way back, it
means last()=position() will be true when it shouldn't.

> 2. Set last() = MAXINT and explain to users that that's the way
>    it works in V1.

This avoids the above-noted problem with (1).

> 3. If the pipeline author uses last() then the step has to buffer
>    and give the right answer. If that causes a resource error in the
>    implementation (out of memory, for example), so be it.

As stated before, I _really_ don't want implementations to have to
peer into XPaths, so I _really_ don't like this.

So, I prefer (2), can (just) live with (1), really don't want (3).

ht
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZoQLkjnJixAXWBoRAroFAJ4tAP+88TWSOq4WNhmhYKPNASNYYQCfdxLa
YUBjRSc7XUjQZE/PupCrQzI=
=QKHx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 09:53:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:52 GMT