- From: Innovimax W3C <innovimax+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:02:52 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
So for the record and as punitive fact, can the editor give the pipeline that would work for the case at the top of this thread ? Mohamed On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > "Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes: >> Now, if you look at the meeting minutes from May 28 2009: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2009M >> ay/0021.html) >> >> you will see that we agreed on adding a new XPath extension function to >> test for unbound options. But somehow this decision was never >> incorporated into the draft. > > Indeed. I wouldn't trust the editor any farther than I could throw him. > > Today's editor's draft includes the p:value-available function as described > in the minutes of 28 May. > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | We have fewer friends than we imagine, > http://nwalsh.com/ | but more than we know.--Hugo Von > | Hofmannsthal > -- Innovimax SARL Consulting, Training & XML Development 9, impasse des Orteaux 75020 Paris Tel : +33 9 52 475787 Fax : +33 1 4356 1746 http://www.innovimax.fr RCS Paris 488.018.631 SARL au capital de 10.000 €
Received on Friday, 16 October 2009 14:03:26 UTC