- From: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:48:12 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
It has been decided between http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xproc-20070706/ when it was still spellt "p:equal" and http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xproc-20070920/ Here is Norm's answer to a related question, many months later : http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2008May/0043.html Which makes me think that it has been declared non primary to force the user to explicit that she/he wants the result of the compare and not one of the document itself Which makes sense to me, at least Because there is the option : "fail-if-not-equal" We have two use case 1) fail-if-not-equal = false and then you're supposed to consume the result and hence it would be practical for you to have the output declared primary 2) fail-if-not-equal = true and then you're NOT suppose to consume the result and hence it helps you detect a bug faster I reasonnably think that the spec should stay as it is : * make bugs easier to find even if it needs to user to be more explicit My two cents Xmlizer On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com> writes: >> wondering if p:compare p:output should really be non-primary ... from >> a DWIM pov I think that we will want to 80% of the time use a result >> >> thx for considering, Jim Fuller > > I can't immediately lay my hands on the minutes where we made this > decision. In retrospect it looks like a pretty arbitrary choice to me, > with my current intuition leaning in Jim's direction. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Through space the universe grasps me > http://nwalsh.com/ | and swallows me up like a speck; > | through thought I grasp it.-- Pascal >
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 07:48:54 UTC