- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:32:12 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Norman Walsh writes: > I'd be willing to leave the ability to pass non-string values as > implementation defined, I think. With a dynamic error if you attempt > to do so in an implementation that can't. How would you be able to tell that the attempt was being made? Coming late to this discussion, I think I strongly prefer the _status quo_. The bottom line is that XSLT and friends are a minority of the step types, and their special needs have already seriously skewed the architecture (w/o them, we wouldn't have parameters), and I don't want that to happen again over multiple/computed inputs, which is what this is really about. We will have to address the multiple inputs question for Vnext, and there are a number of more general solutions which will work for _all_ step types*, not just XSLT etc. I really don't want multiple solutions in this space, so introducing a premature solution for XSLT is just not a good idea in my book. Sorry, live with it, is my preferred response. ht * At least three candidates: A resource manager; sets of named docs; reduce. - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHBPlskjnJixAXWBoRAvQsAJ9Q4GPhPE7E/ttIQSw4OV+yuwKBQQCfQHV3 r3oiun6fCF7+pETRRXSyYEQ= =F+vX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 14:32:24 UTC