- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:47:19 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <873b0lr0l4.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: | On 6/7/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: |> Right now, we have support for 1 or 0-or-more documents as input. |> What's missing is support for 1-or-more and 0-or-1. |> |> I can think of some reasons for 0-or-1 (an optional configuration |> input, for example), but I can't think of any uses for 1-or-more. | | 0-or-1 is already in use in the spec : look at p:option/p:parameter | but since zero is authorized, why an empty sequence wouldn't be | authorized here ? Options, parameters, (and xpath-context and viewport-source) are special cases. You can't declare an atomic step such that it takes 0 or 1 documents on an "ordinary" input port. You can only say 1 or 0 or more. You can pass an empty sequence to p:option and p:parameter. You can pass an empty sequence to p:xpath-context too, but your expression better return an empty node set. A p:viewport-source does require exactly one document. |> With that in mind, does anyone want to advance arguments for change |> in this part of the spec? | | some DTD like | | (nothing) or cardinality="" 1-1 | cardinality="*" 0-or-more | cardinality="?" 0-or-1 | cardinality="+" 1-or-more Yes, we could do that. I'd like to think of something more user-friendly than "cardinality". And are you arguing that we should do this, or only that we could? Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Vision is the art of seeing things http://nwalsh.com/ | invisible.-- Swift
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 11:47:24 UTC