- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:11:44 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Innovimax SARL wrote: > On 7/24/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: >> Innovimax SARL wrote: >> > On 7/23/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote: >> >> A.1.3 Equal: The fail-if-not-equal option hasn't been described. Why >> >> return "1" or "0" rather than the more human-readable "true" or >> "false"? >> > >> > I think it match directly boolean() of XPath, isn'it ? >> >> The string value of boolean true is "true". The string value of boolean >> false is "false". Only if you first convert the boolean to a number do >> you get the strings "0" and "1". > > yes but every where else we use "yes/no" > that's why I found less confusing "0/1" for boolean à la XPath and > yes/no boolean à la XSLT But 0/1 isn't boolean a la XPath (true/false) is. I would be happy with yes/no instead, since that's what we've used elsewhere. It's just 0/1 that I find objectionable. > may be we should take a look at XQuery Update > -- your proposal -- > 3.1.1 upd:insertBefore > 3.1.2 upd:insertAfter > -- /your proposal > > 3.1.3 upd:insertInto (we don't need this one) > > -- the status quo -- > 3.1.4 upd:insertIntoAsFirst > 3.1.5 upd:insertIntoAsLast > -- /the status quo -- > > 3.1.6 upd:insertAttributes (this one is A.1.15 Set Attributes) > > may be we should just provide both > > <p:option name="position" default="as-first" /> > and allowed values "as-first", "as-last", "after", "before" You're right: I think all four options would be useful. I'd have position be "first-child", "last-child", "after" and "before". I'm not sure there's an obvious default, which makes me think that it should be a required option. Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 08:11:47 UTC