W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Mixed @xpath-version attributes

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:36:05 +0100
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5btzhqkvyy.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

Norman Walsh writes:

> With that change, I think we can simply say:
>   If a step specifies an @xpath-version, then that is the version that
>   it uses. If it does not specify a version, but a version is
>   specified on one of its ancestors, the nearest ancestor version
>   specified is the version that it uses. If no version is specified
>   on the step or among its ancestors, then its XPath version is
>   implementation-defined.
> I think it's ok if the implementation makes that decision dynamically.
> So if an <p:pipeline xpath-version="1.0"> imports a library, it can
> elect to make implementation-defined @xpath-version of the steps in
> that library "1.0". If the same implementation imports that library
> into a <p:pipeline xpath-version="2.0">, it can make it 2.0.
> Thoughts? (If we can come to closure on this quickly, I'd like to get
> it into the 1 May draft, so please do reply.)

I'm happy with this proposal.  I think you should include your
"It's OK" paragraph as a Note in the spec.

- -- 
 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]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Friday, 25 April 2008 11:36:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:45 UTC