[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cam] Token notation
David, I am not sure which xpath books you have been reading. The XPATH I use in XSLT would have the use Contains($param,'value'). In fact at the moment I am writing a stylesheet to generate an intermediate format based on pasing in a set of context values and this is what I have chosen to translate the expression into. Personally I am not a great fan of the OO approach but the it is fairly compact. Why do we not adopt $param rather than %param%? Martin Roberts xml designer, BT Exact e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com tel: +44(0) 1473 609785 clickdial fax: +44(0) 1473 609834 Intranet Site :http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki -----Original Message----- From: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com] Sent: 06 June 2003 01:39 To: Roberts,MME,Martin,XSG3 R Cc: cam@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: re: [cam] Token notation Martin, I'm not in love with it either - but supposedly this is pukka XPath style accessing. If you can convince me of something that is more natural and also reflects XPath (maybe XPath 2.0?) - I think that we should consider it. The idea behind the syntax as is - was that standard code written to parse XPath would be purposed to handle this. However - if this is not a valid assumption - lets re-visit this! It would also be nice to have a more object centric approach item.equal = 'testvalue' Thoughts? Thanks, DW. =================================================== Message text written by INTERNET:martin.me.roberts@bt.com >I hate the notation token='%param%'and contains(value,'testvalue') What would be wrong with equal(%param%,'testvalue') I am going to change my examples to this as I feel I can process them more easily. Martin<
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]