- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 16:23:33 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Hi Mohamed, > On 5/26/06, *Jeni Tennison* <jeni@jenitennison.com > <mailto:jeni@jenitennison.com>> wrote: > > Doesn't: > > <p:variable name="validity" context="document" > select="/*/@validity" /> > <p:when test="$validity = 'partial' or $validity = 'none'"> > ... > </p:when> > > provide just the same challenges for the implementation, in terms of > tracking dependencies through XPaths and keeping documents in > memory, as: > > <p:variable name="validity" select="$document/*/@validity" /> > <p:when test="$validity = 'partial' or $validity = 'none'"> > ... > </p:when> > > As Richard pointed this out in last telcon, I'm in favor of the first > notation > First, because the second is NOT a valid XPath 1.0 expression Erm, are you saying that you don't think that "$document/*/@validity" is a valid XPath 1.0 expression? It *is* a valid XPath 1.0 expression; why do you think it isn't? > Then, because we don't need to parse the full XPath to make a dependency > graph of the pipeline (for a wysiwig editor, for example) I wonder if I'm misunderstanding what people mean when they say this. As far as I can tell, in both cases, you have to parse the XPath expression "$validity = 'partial' or $validity = 'none'" to tell that the condition is dependent on the 'document' input. Isn't that what people mean when they talk about dependency graphs? > And last but not least because if we handle different kind of XPath in > the future (streamable, Xpath 2.0, etc.) it will not be necessary to > handle all those kinds of XPath I don't understand the point you're making here. Could you expand? Cheers, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 15:23:48 UTC