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 08:29:11 -0500
Message-ID: <997C307BEB90984EBE935699389EC41CC32E2D@CORPUSMX70C.corp.emc.com>
To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
> > 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.

I read it more as: "If no explicit connection [for p:xpath-context] is
provided, ..." - which is not allowed by the schema

> 
> > 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.

It is not an error to use p:empty in p:xpath-context, which is what the
prose in 4.4.1 seems to be about, but I am still not sure what is the
meaning of no p:xpath-context *at all*.

Regards,
Vojtech
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 13:29:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 February 2010 13:29:55 GMT