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

Re: Mixed @xpath-version attributes

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:32:28 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2ej8ofllv.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say:
| 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.

Ok, I implemented it that way.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | It is not impossibilities which fill us
http://nwalsh.com/            | with the deepest despair, but
                              | possibilities which we have failed to
                              | realize.--Robert Mallet

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 20:33:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 April 2008 20:33:15 GMT