- From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:02:34 -0700
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <28d56ece0704291402p13ad38fdybc6788073520b540@mail.gmail.com>
On 4/24/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > > Consider: > > <p:serialize> > <p:option name="href" value="/tmp/out.xml"/> > <p:option name="method" value="html"/> > </p:serialize> > > I wonder if we should allow that to be written as: > > <p:serialize href="/tmp/out.xml" method="html"/> I would love to be able to do that!!! I wonder if we should also allow > > <p:option name="href" value="/tmp/out.xml"/> > > to be expressed as > > <p:option href="/tmp/out.xml"/> Yes. I have mixed feelings about both of these, but I find myself doing the > latter by accident sometimes and wishing for the former. Now that we > have options and parameters clearly distinct, it doesn't seem totally > unreasonable to do this. > > In both cases, I would expect the attribute values to be taken literally. > If you want a select, you have to do it the long way: > > <p:option name="href" select="concat($basedir,'foo.html')"/> Sure. BTW, what is the 'p:serialize' step ? Do you mean 'p:store' or your proposed XSLT 2.0 serialization step ? -- --Alex Milowski "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language considered." Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 21:02:40 UTC