- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:04:22 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote: > At one point we were going to use context-position and context-size. > Then we decided that we couldn't and switched to p:iteration-count() > instead of context size. > > Don't we also need a p:iteration-size() or something? Uh. Wasn't the whole reason behind not having position() and last() that we didn't want to support last() and so we had to introduce an extension function to give an iteration number rather than the built-in XPath mechanisms? In other words, if you introduce p:iteration-size() as well as p:iteration-count() then we've effectively got a context size and position and we may as well call them the standard names (last() and position()). I'm not (at all) against it (quite the opposite), just thought we'd resolved this. Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Friday, 3 August 2007 07:08:52 UTC