- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:58:29 +0200
- To: "Alex Milowski" <alex@milowski.org>
- Cc: "XProc WG" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On 8/13/07, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote: > > On 8/13/07, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8/13/07, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 8/8/07, Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > s/A.2.1 Add Attributes/A.2.1 Add Attribute/ > > > > > > > > Please specify also the XPath Context for the match option > > > > > > > > == boolean == > > > > > > > > Please fix the inconsistencies between yes/true/no/false everywhere > > > > and and clarify this position for p:equal (which currently generates > > > > 0/1) > > > > > > All options that are booleans use 'yes' and 'no'. Only XPath expression > > > evaluations use 'true' and 'false' as logical values. > > > > > > p:equal does need to be clarified as to what is in the c:result > > > element. > > > > > > "yes" and "no" or "true" or "false" ? > > > > > > Opinions anyone? > > > > > > It seems this issue was already raised and solved > > > > The problem is that everywhere we have an option which need to have a > > boolean value, it's just a pain to make it work with yes/no > > So yes/no and adding true/false seems just good to me > > I was not suggesting we add "true/false" to option values. Only asking > what the value of the c:result element should be for p:equals. If we wanted > to be totally consistent, we'd use the literals "yes" and "no". Sorry, I misunderstand I would say that to be fully consistent with XPath, the answer should "true" or "false" Regards, Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 21:58:34 UTC