- From: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 18:49:02 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Norm, 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... A small win, but a win ! Let's try to solve your use case Here are the ways to solve it with the lesser code 1) First, is to say that selecting an unbound variable will generate un unbound variable (a bit tricky) 2) To add an attribute on p:with-option that says @bound-like-this-option="$foo" ; if foo is bound then the variable will be bound and the value will be the content of the select and will not be bound if $foo isn't bound In this case you just have to write <p:directory-list> <p:with-option name="path" select="$path" bound-like-this-option="$path"> <p:empty/> </p:with-option> <p:with-option name="include-filter" select="$include-filter" bound-like-this-option="$include-filter"> <p:empty/> </p:with-option> <p:with-option name="exclude-filter" select="$exclude-filter" bound-like-this-option="$exclude-filter"> <p:empty/> </p:with-option> </p:directory-list> We eventually need to come up with a better name for this attribute Xmlizer
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 16:50:07 UTC