W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > October 2009

Re: Dealing with unbound options

From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:02:52 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0910160702x33fdebedy3aa92dbfdbcc6942@mail.gmail.com>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
So for the record and as punitive fact, can the editor give the
pipeline that would work for the case at the top of this thread ?

Mohamed

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> "Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes:
>> Now, if you look at the meeting minutes from May 28 2009:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009M
>> ay/0021.html)
>>
>> you will see that we agreed on adding a new XPath extension function to
>> test for unbound options. But somehow this decision was never
>> incorporated into the draft.
>
> Indeed. I wouldn't trust the editor any farther than I could throw him.
>
> Today's editor's draft includes the p:value-available function as described
> in the minutes of 28 May.
>
>                    Be seeing you,
>                     norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | We have fewer friends than we imagine,
> http://nwalsh.com/      | but more than we know.--Hugo Von
>               | Hofmannsthal
>



-- 
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 Friday, 16 October 2009 14:03:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 October 2009 14:03:27 GMT