- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 07:05:15 -0400
- To: <xproc-dev@w3.org>
> OK, so maybe I just don't understand Mozer's proposal, but here's > another, even simpler, I think, suggestion: > > For each non-required option with no default and name NAME, there is > an additional option defined automatically named NAME-bound, whose > value is "1" if NAME is bound and "" otherwise. > > This will enable simple use of "if $NAME-bound then ... else What Mohammed was proposing was a simple fallback mechanism for the case when the option is not bound. Personally, I like it more than the $NAME-bound magic: suppose you have an option named "upper-bound", you will then have to refer to something like "upper-bound-bound" etc. Also, what would be the advantage of this compared to the p:bound() function you proposed earlier? Regards, Vojtech
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 11:06:56 UTC