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

Re: ACTION-2008-08-28-03: the kinds of nodes that are legal for all steps

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:00:28 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0809240800y340d39b7j7bcfabbfd7cb0795@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:

> N.B. There are two change proposals herein.
>
> 7.1.12 p:insert
>
> Allows only element nodes and says so. On reflection, I think this is
> correct. On some call we had a discussion about the possibility of
> inserting, for example, comments before the document element. It turns
> out that this isn't possible because the content to be inserted must
> be a document and must, therfore, contain an element.
>
>
> 7.1.20 p:replace
>
> Claims that it must match element nodes, but I don't see why.
>
> PROPOSAL: Allow the match pattern to match element, comment,
> processing-instruction, or text nodes.


OK


>
>
>
>
>
> The current text makes group-adjacent meaningless unless element nodes
> are matched.
>
> PROPOSAL: Change the description of adjacency as follows:
>
>  Two matching nodes are considered adjacent if and only if they are
>  siblings and only ignorable nodes occur between them.
>
>  If both matching nodes are elements, then whitespace text, comment,
>  and processing instruction nodes are ignorable.
>
>  If either matching node is not an element, then only whitespace text
>  nodes are ignorable.


Seems ok at first glance


>
>
> ========================================
>
> Mohamed made two other proposals in LC 016:
>
> - That match on p:viewport can only match element nodes. This is true, but
>  I don't think we have to say anything else because the text is clear that
>  the matched nodes are treated as documents, so they must be elements.
>

ok that's fine

>
> - Proposal to change p:insert, but I don't think that works for the reasons
>  I cited above.
>

Well I don't agree
What about Richard argument in http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2008/08/28-
minutes
[[
I like Richard's formulation: p:insert allows matching of anything
  which may have children if where is first or last, and anything that _is_
  a child if where is before or after
]]

>
> I think that *at last* discharges my action!






-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 15:01:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 September 2008 15:01:07 GMT