revised wording proposal for an XPath 1.0 issue

In connection with an earlier comment on the XPath 1.0 spec [1] I made a
proposal [2, 3] for wording changes which would address the issues raised.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xpath-comments/2010AprJun/0000.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xpath-comments/2010AprJun/0001.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xpath-comments/2010AprJun/0002.html

The attached HTML document presents a revised form of these proposed wording 
changes in a form that may be more easily assimilated.  (I sent a similar note
a few moments ago to which the wrong version of the change proposal was
attached; apologies for the error.)

-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com 
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib                 
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************