W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Detecting unbound options

From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 18:28:36 +0200
Message-ID: <a0ad8ffe0905270928t63ac893ah4b091385d9f1eb23@mail.gmail.com>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
I think adding relevent default values per step represents the 'least
change' though if its really problematic then implentators can address
in the short term; as for delaying the spec ... I think its time to
let the 'cows make the paths' then let v+1 pave em over.

Jim Fuller

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>>> Yuck! But can we really live with this...
>>
>> For sure not.
>>
>> The most straightforward approach would be to add p:bound? as an XPath
>> extension function.
>
> Alas, I think that would just trade a great big nested p:try/p:catch
> for a great big p:choose...
>
>                                        Be seeing you,
>                                          norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Part of thinking is its cruelty, aside
> http://nwalsh.com/            | from its contents. It is the process of
>                              | detachment from everything else, the
>                              | ripping, the wrenching, the sharpness
>                              | of cutting.--Elias Canetti
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 16:29:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 May 2009 16:29:15 GMT