- From: James Fuller <james.fuller.2007@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 18:28:36 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
I think adding relevent default values per step represents the 'least change' though if its really problematic then implentators can address in the short term; as for delaying the spec ... I think its time to let the 'cows make the paths' then let v+1 pave em over. Jim Fuller On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: > "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> writes: >>> Yuck! But can we really live with this... >> >> For sure not. >> >> The most straightforward approach would be to add p:bound? as an XPath >> extension function. > > Alas, I think that would just trade a great big nested p:try/p:catch > for a great big p:choose... > > Be seeing you, > norm > > -- > Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Part of thinking is its cruelty, aside > http://nwalsh.com/ | from its contents. It is the process of > | detachment from everything else, the > | ripping, the wrenching, the sharpness > | of cutting.--Elias Canetti >
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 16:29:14 UTC