Re: New static error: options in the XProc namespace

/ "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| On 5/14/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
|> |
|> | If $p:position is always 1, why have $p:position?
|>
|> Position is always 1 in for-each and viewport because they're odd cases.
|> Consider this example instead:
|
| Ok p:viewport can accept only one document as input
|
| But that's not the case for for-each !

You can never read a sequence of documents from the 'current' port
inside a for-each, can you? I don't think you can, so the p:position is
always "1".

| As you can see it in this thread, I proposed that $p:position is equal
| to the position of the document extract in the source sequence

That makes p:position exactly the same as p:for-each_index, right?

| Therefore it still sticks to the definition used in
| p:matching-documents, our root use case
|
| Am I implying something wrong ?

No, I don't think so. AFIACT, you're just proposing slightly different
semantics for p:position. I don't feel strongly about it.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A man is not necessarily intelligent
http://nwalsh.com/            | because he has plenty of ideas, any
                              | more than he is a good general because
                              | he has plenty of soldiers.-- Chamfort