- From: merlin <merlin@baltimore.ie>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 19:26:54 +0100
- To: reagle@w3.org
- Cc: "John Boyer" <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org
r/reagle@w3.org/2002.05.29/14:20:26 >On Wednesday 29 May 2002 01:55 pm, John Boyer wrote: >> In conclusion, this means that if an empty node-set is given as input to >> an Xpath 2.0 filter, returning an empty node-set would be behavior >> consistent with the XPath 1.0 recommendation and with the XPath filter >> 1.0 in the XML DSig recommendation. To throw an error would be >> inconsistent. > >Yes, I prefer this and its what I meant when I said, "We could add a >processing step that says if the input node-set is empty the transform is >done." [1] I changed it to the error [2] because I feared I was alone, but >now that you've clarified it further perhaps Gregor and Merlin might agree >too? <smile/> Either option is defensible and this is just a boundary case, although I agree we need to specify what happens, so I'll change my vote to abstain. Merlin
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 14:28:06 UTC