- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:54:09 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh wrote: > / Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say: > | All of the options that are boolean for the step library need to be > | reworked slightly to make sure they allow the value "true" and "false" as well. > > Yes, and I don't know what to say about steps that generate true or false answers. > I'm inclined to say "yes" and "no", but only because it's more consistent with > what we had historically. I think it's going to be very hard for people to use options that have yes/no values, because creating yes or no from XPath expressions is difficult. For example, how would you do the following pseudo-code. <p:add-xml-base> <p:option name="all" select="...if /test then 'yes' else 'no'..." /> </p:add-xml-base> (I know how to do it -- you use substring() on 'yesno' and rely on conversion of true to 1 -- I just think it's unreasonable for authors to have to do that.) I think we should switch to using 'true'/'false' everywhere for option values, since that's what boolean true/false get converted to as strings. If we do that, it makes sense (to me) to switch to true/false everywhere. Cheers, Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 15:54:23 UTC