- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:59:48 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2vdwss33v.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"James Fuller" <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> writes: > in section 2.10 Options > > '[Definition: An option is a name/value pair where the name is an > expanded name and the value must be a string.] If a document, node, or > other value is given, its XPath string value is computed and that > string is used.' > > in section 5.7.3 p:with-option > > 'Regardless of the implicit type of the expression, when XPath 1.0 is > being used, the string value of the expression becomes the value of > the option; when XPath 2.0 is being used, the value is an > untypedAtomic.' > > I would propose either replacing the following sentence in 2.10 Options > > 'If a document, node, or other value is given, its XPath string value > is computed and that string is used.' > > with the same sentence > > 'Regardless of the implicit type of the expression, when XPath 1.0 is > being used, the string value of the expression becomes the value of > the option; when XPath 2.0 is being used, the value is an > untypedAtomic.' > > or providing a referential link to sentence in section 5.7.3 p:with-option. Makes sense to me. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | We learn from experience that not http://nwalsh.com/ | everything which is incredible is | untrue.--Cardinal De Retz
Received on Friday, 19 September 2008 13:00:29 UTC