Re: XProc Editors Draft 2007-07-19: Section 4.2 Comments

/ Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say:
| 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?

I don't think so. What I recall is that we convinced ourselves that
it wasn't appropriate to use context position[1][2][3].

We've got a note in the spec that makes it clear that implementations
only have to do the caching work if there's an XPath expression that
uses last(). I think it makes sense to change this note to cover
p:iteration-size() instead of last().

| 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.

Yes, but apparently not the way you recall :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/06/07-minutes.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/06/14-minutes.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/06/21-minutes.html

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | We discover in ourselves what others
http://nwalsh.com/            | hide from us, and we recognize in
                              | others what we hide from ourselves.--
                              | Vauvenargues