|
Andreas Savva: 08/21/2008 7:03 AM EDT
|
|
Action: |
Update
Closed set to 08/21/2008
Status changed from Fixed to Closed
|
|
Andreas Savva: 08/21/2008 7:03 AM EDT
|
|
Comment: |
checked in draft 13
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Savva: 04/23/2008 10:26 AM EDT
|
|
Comment: |
- put complete command line including /bin/some_exec
- add links to reference
- add text to document
|
|
Action: |
Update
Status changed from Open to Resolved
|
|
geoff williams: 04/03/2008 6:04 AM EDT
|
|
Comment: |
Sent (13.3.08) to mail list for feedback:
Hi all,
Would like to propose a modification of the [2.3 [parameter]] content in the draft along the following lines.
1) Addition at the point of introduction of XPath use of the following links for referencing XPath nomenclature:
XPath 1.0 : http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath
XPath 2.0 : http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/
2) Insertion of a second example (e.g. a new [2.3.3]) to illustrate use of substring function:
The following example illustrates the ability to match on part of an element content through the use of the XPath 1.0 substring function:
<jsdl:JobDefinition>
<jsdl:JobDescription>
<jsdl:Application>
<jsdl-posix:POSIXApplication>
<jsdl-posix:Executable>/bin/some_exe</jsdl-posix:Executable>
<jsdl-posix:Argument>-infile</jsdl-posix:Argument>
<jsdl-posix:Argument>in.NNN.dat</jsdl-posix:Argument>
</jsdl-posix:POSIXApplication>
</jsdl:Application>
</jsdl:JobDescription>
<sweep:Sweep>
<sweep:Assignment>
<sweep:Parameter>
substring(/*//jsdl-posix:Argument[2], 4, 3)
</sweep:Parameter>
<sweepfunc:Values>
<sweepfunc:Value>001</sweepfunc:Value>
<sweepfunc:Value>002</sweepfunc:Value>
<sweepfunc:Value>003</sweepfunc:Value>
<sweepfunc:Value>004</sweepfunc:Value>
<sweepfunc:Value>005</sweepfunc:Value>
</sweepfunc:Values>
</sweep:Assignment>
</sweep:Sweep>
</jsdl:JobDefinition>
The above yields the following 5 jobs:
"-infile in.001.dat"
"-infile in.002.dat"
"-infile in.003.dat"
"-infile in.004.dat"
"-infile in.005.dat"
Note: I've referred to the substring function as "XPath 1.0" (unlike the draft which implies in the footer that it's an XPath 2.0 function) as it's
XPath 1.0 that defines its use. Not sure if this is important.
3) For the benefit of the less attentive reader, perhaps the use of emphasis e.g. bold (or titled as "Invalid Example 1") to stress that the existing
[2.3.3 Example 2] represents an invalid form.
gef
|
|
Action: |
Update
Status changed from Pending to Open
|
|
Andreas Savva: 03/12/2008 11:13 AM EDT
|
|
Comment: |
Check that there is explanatory text and an example.
|
|
Action: |
Update
Assigned To set to geoff williams
Status changed from Open to Pending
|
|
|