- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:41:48 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87zm4q26zn.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say: | 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. Everyone else, please weigh in! | BTW, what is the 'p:serialize' step ? Do you mean 'p:store' or your | proposed | XSLT 2.0 serialization step ? I'm not sure. I consider the whole nexus of names around parse/store/serialize/escape-markup/unescape-markup to be up in the air. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If God created us in his own image, we http://nwalsh.com/ | have more than reciprocated.-- Voltaire
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2007 21:41:57 UTC