Re: Publication Request: XProc on 6 July 2007

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

When/why did we decide that p:iteration-source and p:viewport-source
and, most importantly, p:xpath-context, didn't allow p:empty?

As I read things, this means that

 <p:pipeline>
  <p:input port="x" primary="no"/>
  <p:option name="debug" required="yes"/>
  <p:choose>
   <p:when test="$debug='true'">
    . . .
   </p:when>
   <p:otherwise>
    . . .
   <p:otherwise>
  </p:choose>
 </p:pipeline>

is broken (no context for the 'test' xpath), and, furthermore, I can't
easily fix it!

I would expect to fix this as follows:

 <p:pipeline>
  <p:input port="x" primary="no"/>
  <p:option name="debug" required="yes"/>
  <p:choose>
   <p:xpath-context><p:empty/></p:xpath-context>
   <p:when test="$debug='true'">
    . . .
   </p:when>
   <p:otherwise>
    . . .
   <p:otherwise>
  </p:choose>
 </p:pipeline>

I agree this is a corner case, but working from the other direction,
surely the content models of these three should be as close to the
same as that of p:input as possible, unless there is a good reason.
What's the reason for not allowing p:empty ?

ht
- -- 
 Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                     Half-time member of W3C Team
    2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
            Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                   URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGi7VWkjnJixAXWBoRAvBSAJ4mLo+ow4P5UrGi/4OYrrOloaUfngCfYWYA
nk/wUT2L7x3gDd2WeTj+bZA=
=lgsU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 14:57:32 UTC