W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > November 2010

RE: Template note updated

From: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:32:10 -0500
Message-ID: <997C307BEB90984EBE935699389EC41C02BC2D58@CORPUSMX70C.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
OK, so just to clarify my standpoint: I was not proposing a change, merely making an observation. If the rest of the WG feels uncomfortable with this, I have no problem with keeping the current p:document-template spec as it is.





Vojtech Toman
Consultant Software Engineer
EMC | Information Intelligence Group


From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Innovimax W3C
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:59 PM
To: Norman Walsh
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Template note updated


I agree that finally I feel unconfortable with that


On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:

"vojtech.toman@emc.com" <vojtech.toman@emc.com> writes:

> I didn't mean that you have to use }, I meant that if the parser sees a
> stray '}' in the regular mode, it does not report an error but treats it
> as a literal '}' character, like it was '}}'.
> So both examples above would produce the same result.


 <test>}</test> => <test>}</test>
 <test>}}</test> => <test>}</test>
 <test>}}}</test> => <test>}}</test>
 <test>}}}}</test> => <test>}}</test>

I see how that's perfectly deterministic, but I'm not sure it'a a
usability improvement over the other possibilities.

                                       Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation

Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746

RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €

Received on Friday, 26 November 2010 13:35:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:49 UTC