W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2010

[Bug 9139] [XPath 2.1] Dynamic function calls and context

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:15:16 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NuQQW-0007Ef-HP@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9139





--- Comment #16 from John Snelson <john.snelson@oracle.com>  2010-03-24 13:15:16 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> OK in principle.
> 
> I'm not sure why base-uri#1 is on your list - should be base-uri#0?. And I
> don't think resolve-uri should be there at all.

I agree - those are errors.

> Do we need to say something about partial function application as well? I think
> fn:lang(?) is synonymous with fn:lang#1.

A good point - so we need an analogous paragraph applying to partial function
application.

> If we want a general rule, then it should be a ban on functions that access
> non-stable parts of the dynamic context; and then we should define which parts
> of the dynamic context are stable and which aren't (this has some relationship
> with the exercise Jonathan has been doing in defining the scope of different
> parts of the static context). current-dateTime(), implicit-timezone(), and
> doc() are OK because the parts of the dynamic context that they access are
> stable.

I would have said "dynamically scoped" rather than "stable" - but yes, that's
the language that I need to formulate a more general rule.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 13:15:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:59 GMT