- From: Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:52:07 -0400
- To: "Robie, Jonathan" <jonathan.robie@emc.com>, Public Joint XSLT XQuery XPath <public-xsl-query@w3.org>
On 16-06-27 02:38 PM, Robie, Jonathan wrote: > On 6/26/16, 9:03 PM, "Michael Dyck" <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> wrote: > >> If we're going to say "X's associated expression" here, then "X" has to be >> "the extension expression". > > Like this? > > An extension expression consists of one or more pragmas, followed by an > optional expression (the extension expression's associated expression). That's the implication, yes. >> But personally, I think it sounds odd to refer >> to a sub-expression of X as "X's associated expression" (because >> "associated" is a weak and non-specific word for something that already >> has a strong and fairly specific relation to X). > > I guess I¹m not convinced that the expression always provides fallback > behavior. I wasn't suggesting the word "fallback" that time (because you'd already rejected it before). > For instance, in this example, the expression is evaluated > whether or not the pragma is recognized: Okay, thanks, that's a good reason not to use the word "fallback". But some other word might work, e.g. "base expression". Or see my suggestion from about 6 hours ago, which you might like even better. (BTW, why did you attach 4 identical copies of the XQuery spec?) -Michael
Received on Monday, 27 June 2016 19:52:38 UTC