- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:36:49 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87ejk1jga6.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: | On 6/21/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: |> / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say: |> | In 2.7.1 System Properties |> | |> | Can we ask that p:episode has to respect NCName production ? |> |> No. It has to be a QName so that vendors can add extensions in their |> own namespace. | | Oups ! I was talking about the content of p:episode... The content? It's used like this: p:system-property("p:episode") I'm not sure what content you mean. |> I'm not sure I expect atomic steps to be able to evaluate p:* functions. |> (They can in my impl, but wouldn't be able to in, for example, Richard's.) | | Hum...don't like that | so I cannot use p:episode in string replace for example ? | | I'm not sure, I want such limitation You can always let the processor do the evaluation: <p:string-replace> <p:option name="match" value="TEMPID"/> <p:option name="replace" select="concat('foo-', p:system-property('p:episode'))"/> </p:string-replace> |> | In 5.4 p:xpath-context Element |> | |> | Why p:xpath-context cannot be defaulted to the default readable port ? |> |> The spec says: |> |> Only one binding is allowed and it works the same way that bindings |> work on a p:input. |> |> That's supposed to imply that the default binding is the default |> readable port, but I can make that more explicit. | | But right now p:xpath-context cannot have an empty content... Oh, sorry. I think that's just an oversight. Fixed. |> | @match vs @select |> | not sure to understand the limitation for the use of @match instead of |> | @select for : |> | * p:insert (why a match pattern, if I want to add a title in each nested divs ?) |> | * p:rename (why a match pattern, if I want to rename all the divs |> | nested or not ?) |> |> Hmmm. Maybe select makes more sense for insert and rename (and delete, |> where it doesn't matter, but I think it should be consistent with |> insert and rename)... | | So what can be the proposal here : | | Put select everywhere we don't want to allow nesting ? | Or do we decorrelate both (@match vs @select / nesting vs non nesting) ? I'm not sure. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | We learn from experience that not http://nwalsh.com/ | everything which is incredible is | untrue.--Cardinal De Retz
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 19:37:01 UTC