- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:18:11 +0200
- To: "Alex Milowski" <alex@milowski.org>
- Cc: "XProc WG" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
On 8/14/07, 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 8/13/07, 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" > > > > While I agree with you on that, we choose to be inconsistent with > XPath for boolean option values. This would be the only place > where booleans have the values "true" and "false". > > I'd rather that boolean values be consistent with the xsd:boolean > simple type but I seem to have lost out to those that prefer being > consistent with XSLT's use of "yes" and "no". > > Our use of "yes" and "no" as literal value will prevent us from > ever typing boolean options as xs:boolean in some future version > of XProc. That is, unless XML Schema allows different enumerated > values for booleans--but don't hold your breath for an XML Schema > 2.0 because 1.1 took a very long time and it still isn't a recommendation. Ok let's see where we stand I think the better of both world (say XSLT and boolean XPath) is to allow everywhere someone has to type something to have (yes/no) and (true/false) for the case this value could be given by XPath I think, this is already the case in XProc The case, you speak about, is when XProc has to define a boolean value that should written by the processor In that case, the previous option was to have (0/1). I think that to be consistent and open for the future, that the best solution is to write (true/false) Then we won't have to wait for XML Schema 2.0 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 Tuesday, 14 August 2007 06:18:16 UTC