Re: Alternative to x!y

I don't know why, but I found "!" nice at the f2f and the more I read it and
the more I prefer the seperate syntax (with two attributes)

Is there any obvious issues with this proposal ?

Ok it's verbose, but as seen in the example, with abbreviated syntax, a lot
of information could be dropped :
* if we refer to a step with only one output, no port name is required
* if we refer to a port name which is unique (in the scope to be defined),
no step name is required

So my thought is that in more than half of the case, only one attribute will
be used (the other will be inferred)

Mohamed

On 8/24/06, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think the issues of axes and XPath implementations are beside the
> point -- _if_ we go this route, we could simply appeal to XPath in an
> 'as if' way -- i.e. "you can understand 'x/y' as if it were an XPath
> with default primary axis 'step' and default child axis 'output
> port'".
>
> But I'm still not sure I want to go the separator route at all. . .
>
> ht
> - --
> 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 v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFE7WiwkjnJixAXWBoRAhrPAJ9UJb8tBrrKdwJ2FA7wUj22b4PpxQCeKSPm
> 2PjNCwspZxKO5wEcHGw3NAw=
> =PBd+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 8 72 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €