[Bug 24207] [XP31] XPath-level element and attribute constructors for use in anonymous functions


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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
          Component|XPath 3.1                   |Requirements for Future
                   |                            |Versions
         Resolution|---                         |LATER
           Assignee|jonathan.robie@gmail.com    |jim.melton@acm.org

--- Comment #5 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> ---
The XSLT and XML Query working groups discussed this issue during a joint
teleconference today.  There was some sentiment that in a more purely and
completely functional language, one might well wish to eliminate this and other
places where special-purpose syntax can do things that cannot be done in
functions.  The historically conditioned role of XPath in relation to its host
languages, however, means that the 3.0/3.1 versions of our specifications are
not such a language.

After some discussion, the working groups decided to resolve the issue as
LATER. There was some dissent from this:  some working-group members did not
agree that this would ever be a useful idea and would prefer to resolve it in
some other way (not clear whether they preferred INVALID, WONTFIX, or

In the course of the discussion, some members of the working groups argued
strongly against the view that the doc() function is parallel to the
constructors proposed here:  doc() is not described as creating nodes, but as
returning nodes which already exist in the dynamic context.  Some participants
in the discussion regarded this as a distinction without a difference, and
there were mentions of angels and heads of pins; for other participants the
distinction does make a difference.

Tony, in your role as originator of the issue, we ask you to close the issue to
indicate your willingness to accept this resolution of the issue, or to re-open
it to indicate unwillingness to accept it.  If we don't hear from you before
two or three weeks have passed, we will assume that your silence indicates

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

Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 16:21:58 UTC