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

Re: Review of Spec

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:52:29 -0700
Message-ID: <28d56ece0703150752x15da7f2lcfcf70d277ac288d@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 3/15/07, Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com> wrote:
>
> / ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
> | Alex Milowski writes:
> |
> |> * In 5, many of the content models have a preferred order for p:input,
> |> p:output,
> |>  p:parameter, etc.  Why wouldn't we just have a model that allows them
> in
> |>  any order:
> |>
> |>  (p:input|p:output|p:parameter|...)*
> |
> | I like it the way it is.  If order isn't significant, pick an order
> | and require it.
>
> Me too.


Hmm... I've just been caught by this several times...


|> * Why don't we use xs:boolean for boolean flags instead of "yes" and "no"
> |>  (e.g. the sequence attribute on p:input)?
> |
> | Hear hear!
>
> No. We don't use any XSD types anywhere else, why here? I don't plan
> to have an XSD-aware XProc pipeline processor.



Using the values "true" and "false" is no different  than using "yes" and
"no".

-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 14:52:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:50 GMT