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

Re: Test suite: variable-005

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:23:54 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2y6ile74l.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes:
> Only the Chair knows, I am not sure any more... :)

I guess only the minutes know then. Or the drafts.

> 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." 

That text has been present in one form or another since the 20
September 2007 draft.

> 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.

I think it's ok. You can leave out the p:xpath-context entirely which
makes the connection implicit.

> 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? 

I think the prose in 4.4.1 is pretty clear that it's not an error.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If you're strong enough, there *are* no
http://nwalsh.com/            | precedents.--Scott Fitzgerald

Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 13:24:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 February 2010 13:24:33 GMT