W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: 4.4.1 p:xpath-context

From: Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:14:00 +0200
Message-ID: <546c6c1c0807230314y281b160aj7667224c9614689@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Ok I try to rephrase

I think what disturbs me is to put at the same level
[[
if the context node is bound to p:empty,
or is unbound
]]

I think that all your argument are good for the case of an unbound document

But not for the case where the user set it to p:empty

unless I still miss something...

Mohamed


On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> / "Innovimax SARL" <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> | Ok, I can see the benefit
> |
> | But why on p:xpath-context only ? why not for all use of XPath 2.0 ?
>
> Where else can this error occur? Most places get their default context
> From the default readable port and fail if there is no such port. We
> don't require a readable port for xpath-context because it's often
> meaningful to have expressions that don't require a context.
>
>                                        Be seeing you,
>                                          norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Great men too make mistakes, and many
> http://nwalsh.com/            | among them do it so often that one is
>                              | almost tempted to call them little
>                              | men.-- Lichtenberg
>



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2008 10:14:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 July 2008 10:14:45 GMT