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

Re: New draft...sortof

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:29:18 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <87fy4gi2mp.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
|> The content? It's used like this:
|>
|>   p:system-property("p:episode")
|>
|> I'm not sure what content you mean.
|
| I was talking about the type of p:system-property("p:episode"), beside
| the fact that it is a string. Do me mandate, that it is NCName ? or
| any kind of string ?

I don't think so. I suppose there might be some value in saying that
it MUST conform to an XML Name. I wonder if mine do...

|> You can always let the processor do the evaluation:
|>
|>   <p:string-replace>
|>     <p:option name="match" value="TEMPID"/>
|>     <p:option name="replace" select="concat('foo-', p:system-property('p:episode'))"/>
|>   </p:string-replace>
|
| Ok, I see, but still not sure we can handle all use cases that way
| Sadly, I  have none in mind at this time, will try to make some
| samples clear not too far from now.

Ok. Thanks.

|> | So what can be the proposal here :
|> |
|> | Put select everywhere we don't want to allow nesting ?
|> | Or do we decorrelate both (@match vs @select / nesting vs non nesting) ?
|>
|> I'm not sure.
|>
| Seems like this point needs some telcon to be worked out

I guess. Or perhaps you could make a concrete proposal and see if we get
agreement?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Don't despair, not even over the fact
http://nwalsh.com/            | that you don't despair.-- Kafka

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 13:29:25 GMT

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