- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:31:07 +0200
- To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
I'm sorry to insist but we need one more information if p:document-position() is the index (say the ith fragment given to the #current port), then we need a connection to input sequence to know from which doc in the sequence this fragment has been taken Mohamed On 5/16/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > / Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say: > | Shouldn't $p:position and $loop_index be the same? We say: > | > | "In contexts where a sequence of documents is being processed, for example, > | in the test expression of a p:matching-documents, this variable returns the > | position of the current document within the sequence. Numbering begins at > | one." > | > | The for-each processes a sequence. > > Yes. Having thought about this some more, I think p:document-position() > inside a for-each ought to be the same as the index. > > If we said that the p:document-position() inside a viewport was also the > same as the index, then I think we could do away with the index > altogether. > > Inside a loop, it would always be the same as p:document-position(). If > a user wanted to be able to refer to the counter in some outer loop, > he or she could set an option and refer to that. > > So now we only need: > > p:episode() > > and > > p:document-position() > > I like that better. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Extinction, n. The raw material out of > http://nwalsh.com/ | which theology created the future > | state.--Ambrose Bierce > > -- 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, 18 May 2007 15:31:15 UTC