Re: Option syntax

On 5/27/07, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>
> I'm very worried that our syntax for setting options can be really
> confusing, especially given that in-scope options can be referred to in
> options whose values are XPath expressions.
>
> An example from Norm several hundred messages back:
>
>    <p:string-replace>
>      <p:option name="match" value="doc/@v"/>
>      <p:option name="replace" value="p:position()"/> <!-- NB: value= -->
>    </p:string-replace>
>
>    <p:string-replace>
>      <p:option name="match" value="doc/@s"/>
>      <p:option name="replace" select="p:position()"/> <!-- NB: select= -->
>    </p:string-replace>

My main problem (even if I agree with what you say) is that Norm's
construct is not possible with current draft

It is said

<p:option
  name = QName
  value = string />

or

<p:option
  name = QName
  select = XPath expression>
   (p:pipe |
    p:document |
    p:inline)
</p:option>

It seems one more time impression are conflicting with statement

Say we correct the model this way

<p:option
  name = QName
  select = XPath expression>
   (p:pipe |
    p:document |
    p:inline)?
</p:option>

Then what is the context of the XPath evaluation when none is
specified ? an empty sequence ? the default readable port ? something
other ?

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 Monday, 28 May 2007 14:05:04 UTC