- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 00:12:44 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
On 5/31/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> was heard to say: > [...] > | I understand the argument that it'd be a pain for implementers to > | provide context to all XPath expressions while still providing > | efficient applications, but given a choice between least surprise to > | users and least work to implementers, I'm going to opt for the former. > | In all other cases (eg <p:for-each>, <p:viewport>, <p:choose>), we say > | that the default readable port provides the context if one isn't > | specified explicitly. > > Yes. I've never thought of options in these terms, but I concede that > the principle of least surprise applies. > > | In the case of <p:choose> (where you also have > | to evaluate an XPath expression), it's a dynamic error if the default > | readable port gives a sequence: if you prefer that rule to picking the > | first document, I'd be happy with that. > > Yes, I like that better. > Hum...interesting It just recall me that I would never be able to make something like this <p:choose> <p:when test="....is the input a sequence..."> </p:when> </p:choose> I would propose a p:occurence component, that will do something like p:count but only give 3 possible answers : 0, 1, + (so will need small buffering) Mohamed -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 8 72 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 22:12:48 UTC