You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to xsp-dev@xml.apache.org by Tagunov Anthony <at...@nnt.ru> on 2001/01/25 22:24:23 UTC
Re: ESQL Almost done... - joint to question
Matt Sergeant wrote:
>OK, I've now added full support for ancestors. The only thing I think is
>remaining are encoding support, date/time formats (for reasons already
>discussed), and finally the reason I'm writing this, are error-results and
>no-results mutually exclusive? Or shoudl no-results be instantiated as
>well as error-results if an error occurs? I think the answer is no, but I
>just want to make sure.
And are <no-results> mutually exclusive with <results>?
Re: ESQL Almost done... - joint to question
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Donald Ball wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Tagunov Anthony wrote:
> >
> > > Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > >
> > > >OK, I've now added full support for ancestors. The only thing I think is
> > > >remaining are encoding support, date/time formats (for reasons already
> > > >discussed), and finally the reason I'm writing this, are error-results and
> > > >no-results mutually exclusive? Or shoudl no-results be instantiated as
> > > >well as error-results if an error occurs? I think the answer is no, but I
> > > >just want to make sure.
> > >
> > > And are <no-results> mutually exclusive with <results>?
> >
> > Absolutely.
>
> well, no, not in the c1 way - but if you want to argue against it, i'm all
> ears.
I think I just typed too fast. Ignore me.
I do think there is a need for being able to do no-results outside of
<results> though. But I think it can be done in both places in a
compatible way (in fact I don't think it requires any changes to the AxKit
taglib).
--
<Matt/>
/|| ** Director and CTO **
//|| ** AxKit.com Ltd ** ** XML Application Serving **
// || ** http://axkit.org ** ** XSLT, XPathScript, XSP **
// \\| // ** Personal Web Site: http://sergeant.org/ **
\\//
//\\
// \\
Re: ESQL Almost done... - joint to question
Posted by Donald Ball <ba...@webslingerZ.com>.
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Tagunov Anthony wrote:
>
> > Matt Sergeant wrote:
> >
> > >OK, I've now added full support for ancestors. The only thing I think is
> > >remaining are encoding support, date/time formats (for reasons already
> > >discussed), and finally the reason I'm writing this, are error-results and
> > >no-results mutually exclusive? Or shoudl no-results be instantiated as
> > >well as error-results if an error occurs? I think the answer is no, but I
> > >just want to make sure.
> >
> > And are <no-results> mutually exclusive with <results>?
>
> Absolutely.
well, no, not in the c1 way - but if you want to argue against it, i'm all
ears.
- donald
Re: ESQL Almost done... - joint to question
Posted by Matt Sergeant <ma...@sergeant.org>.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Tagunov Anthony wrote:
> Matt Sergeant wrote:
>
> >OK, I've now added full support for ancestors. The only thing I think is
> >remaining are encoding support, date/time formats (for reasons already
> >discussed), and finally the reason I'm writing this, are error-results and
> >no-results mutually exclusive? Or shoudl no-results be instantiated as
> >well as error-results if an error occurs? I think the answer is no, but I
> >just want to make sure.
>
> And are <no-results> mutually exclusive with <results>?
Absolutely.
--
<Matt/>
/|| ** Director and CTO **
//|| ** AxKit.com Ltd ** ** XML Application Serving **
// || ** http://axkit.org ** ** XSLT, XPathScript, XSP **
// \\| // ** Personal Web Site: http://sergeant.org/ **
\\//
//\\
// \\