[Bug 24455] [xslt 3.0] Streamability of grouping variable references

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24455

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com

--- Comment #2 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> ---
We discussed this on the second day of the Prague face to face meeting.  Some
notes:

- The body of the for-each-group is not listed among the operands; we should
add a note mentioning this, if only to avoid asking ourselves again in future
whether that's a mistake.  (It's not:  the select is grounded, so nothing in
the body can make a difference -- it could, if a variable from an outer
for-each-group were allowed, but such variable references are disallowed by
section 19.8.7.10 [the focus-setting container would be the inner
for-each-group, which would violate 1c, 2c, or 3c].)

- The fact that the body is not among the (relevant) operands in this case
means that the bug report is not in fact valid.  The for-each-group construct
as a whole is adjudged grounded and consuming without ever needing to look at
the body.  So the fact that the rules for variable reference would appear to
rule this example out is made harmless:  those rules are not consulted for this
case.

- Along the same lines, we are inclined to believe that the children of
xsl:sort and the @group-adjacent attribute may also be ignorable in the case
where the @select expression is grounded.  That would lead to a considerable
simplification of the rules for this case (potential elimination of rules 1d,
1e, 1f in 19.8.4.18 Streamability of xsl:for-each-group).  Note that 1c must be
retained, as the AVTs are evaluated with the outer focus, not the inner focus.

Although the original bug report appears to be INVALID, the other issues
uncovered need resolution.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 09:07:17 UTC