- From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 16:04:57 +0200
- To: "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
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