RE: [cam] Token notation

[martin.me.roberts@bt.com]

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<