W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > February 2014

[Bug 24528] New: Streamability of xsl:number and from and count patterns

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:14:38 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-24528-523@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24528

            Bug ID: 24528
           Summary: Streamability of xsl:number and from and count
                    patterns
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Last Call drafts
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Windows NT
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XSLT 3.0
          Assignee: mike@saxonica.com
          Reporter: abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl
        QA Contact: public-qt-comments@w3.org

Under 19.8.4.29 Streamability of xsl:number
(http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt-30/#streamability-xsl-number), the fourth numbered
item in the list says:

"The from and count patterns if present; these are higher-order operands with
usage inspection."

and in the Note we say:

"In practice the rules depend very little on the from and count patterns. This
is because when the instruction is applied to a streamed node, the instruction
will be free-ranging regardless of these patterns; while if it is applied to a
grounded node or atomic value, the instruction will be motionless regardless of
the values of these patterns. The only restriction is that the patterns must
not reference a grouping variable."

and under 19.8.9 Classifying Patterns
(http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt-30/#classifying-patterns) we have a whole bunch of
rules that designate a pattern such as foo[bar] as free-ranging.

It appears to me that these rules are in conflict. On one hand you could
analyse the pattern and say "hey, this is not classifying", on the other hand
you can analyse xsl:number having a grounded select-expression and allow any
free-ranging pattern (provided it doesn't use a bound variable).

I don't think the rules are in error here per se, but I do think that when a
pattern is used and should not be analysed as a pattern, we should say
something about it. Or maybe we already say so elsewhere?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 20:14:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:45 UTC