W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > February 2010

RE: Test suite: variable-005

From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 04:34:19 -0500
Message-ID: <997C307BEB90984EBE935699389EC41CC32D45@CORPUSMX70C.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
> The test variable-005.xml
>   http://tests.xproc.org/tests/required/variable-005.xml
> tests that if no binding is provided for p:variable and no default
> readable port exists, it will be bound to p:empty.
> But it also contains a p:choose that has neither an explicit
> binding nor a default readable port. I believe that *that* is still an
> error.
> Yes?

Only the Chair knows, I am not sure any more... :)

Section 4.4 (p:choose) says: "The p:choose can specify the context node
against which the XPath expressions that occur on each branch are
evaluated. The context node is specified as a connection for the
p:xpath-context. If no explicit connection is provided, the default
p:xpath-context is the document on the default readable port."

But Section 4.4.1 (p:xpath-context) says: "In an XPath 1.0
implementation, if the context node is connected to p:empty, or is
unconnected and the default readable port is undefined, an empty
document node is used instead as the context. In an XPath 2.0
implementation, the context item is undefined." 

I wonder if these two paragraphs are actually correct. Especially the
sentence in 4.4: "If no explicit connection is provided, ...". If it is
about p:xpath-context, then it is not correct because you now always
have to provide a binding in p:xpath-context. You can also read the text
in 4.4 that if you don't specify p:xpath-context in p:choose, you don't
have to have a default readable port.

I am also not sure how to interpret this: is no explicit binding in
p:choose and no default readable port an error, or is it OK? 

Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 09:35:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:48 UTC