- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 23:00:15 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11682 --- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2011-01-07 23:00:14 UTC --- The under-specification is to some extent deliberate: Like the doc() and collection() functions, these functions access information from the external environment (or context), and the specification is therefore deliberately written in abstract terms, since different environments will inevitably differ. We do explain in a non-normative note that the intent is that they should correspond to operating system environment variables if that's a meaningful concept. There's nothing to stop implementors deciding to map the concept to something other than operating system variables if they choose; for example, they could simply access command line parameters, or properties from some product-specific configuration file. You're right to point out that the F+O specification assumed that "environment variables" would be added to the description of the dynamic context, and that this proposed addition has not been implemented. We should fix that. You're also right that the description could be clearer about whether the set of environment variables is expected to be stable for the duration of a query/transformation. The way the notes are written suggests that the WG did not intend to require stability, but this doesn't seem to be stated normatively. The note that says external functions may modify the values of variables is referring of course to the possibility that external functions may be non-deterministic, and should perhaps say so. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 23:00:16 UTC