- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 09:57:16 +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 7/24/07, 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. > > Hum...but how would you generate the value yes/no with XPath 1.0 ? > > <p:option name="fail-if-not-equal" select="...something evaluated as > boolean..."/> That's a very good point, and argues for using true/false for all boolean options. (Because <p:option name="fail-if-not-equal" select="false()" /> will give the fail-if-not-equal option the value 'false', not '0'.) Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2007 08:57:21 UTC