Re: Remarks on W3C Editor's Draft 24 January 2008 ( part III)

/ Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
[...]
| But "visible" is still used everywhere without formal definition

Ok, I attempted to add one at the top of 3.2.

|> |  cannot determine will give the same result in XPath 1.0 that it would
|> have
|> | given if XPath 2.0 had been used
|> |  ]]
|> |  is it possible to point to a spec for this sentence ?
|>
|> Do you have a suggestion?
|
| I fear I've none. May be
| http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#id-backwards-compatibility ?

I'm not sure that's sufficient, so I'm inclined to leave it to the discretion
of the implementor.

|> | This sentence
|> | [[
|> | All the step types in a pipeline must have unique names: it is a static
|> | error (err:XS0036) if any step type name is built-in and/or declared or
|> | defined more than once in the same scope.
|> | ]]
|> |
|> | is a bit troublesome : what is "in the same scope" ? it is clear that
|> there
|> | is a scope for "step names" but not clear for "step types".
|>
|> The beginning of 3.2, "The scope of the names of the step types is..."
|> attempts to explain that. Is it unclear, or do you think it's incorrect?
|
| No I just think it should be forward referenced here

But that error is *in* section 3.2. What would you like the reference to
point to?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Oh well, no matter what happens,
http://nwalsh.com/            | there's always death.-- Napoleon