Hi Erik, Your wording is now placed into the spec, adding the bit for catching undefined variables. Cheers, John M. Boyer, Ph.D. STSM: Lotus Forms Architect and Researcher Chair, W3C Forms Working Group Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Victoria Software Lab E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com> Sent by: public-forms-request@w3.org 10/31/2007 06:33 PM Please respond to ebruchez@orbeon.com To "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org> cc Subject Re: Fw: Section 7 (PR#139) John, > Your wording for #139 looks great to me. > If you have no objections, I'd like to include mention of variables too > because someone can put a variable reference into the expression, and > that would be syntactically correct, but we should fail because we > define no variables as in scope... OK by you? Sure. > Regarding the commentary in 7.12, it's an informative note which > suggests that processors may do the behavior. Do you think XPath 2.0 > will cause us to escalate that to a higher requirement level? Not necessarily. It's just that XPath 2.0 actually defines static vs. dynamic errors, which would enable us to easily define how an implementation should perform a static analysis of XPath expressions at loading time, with the main purpose of early error reporting. -Erik -- Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way http://www.orbeon.com/Received on Thursday, 1 November 2007 04:40:18 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:27 UTC