Re: Processing nested binds

This is a great relief to me, because I feared that there was some  
essential point I was missing.

>>>>> So the `<bind>` text is specific for the a reason similar to  
>>>>> `<repeat>`. And I think you have to make that distinction between  
>>>>> the two cases: >>>general handling of bindings for things like  
>>>>> `<group>`, `<switch>`, etc., and handling of repeated constructs  
>>>>> like `<repeat>` and `<bind>`. >>>There doesn't seem to be a way  
>>>>> around making a distinction because the result that needs to be  
>>>>> achieved is different.
>> My point being, that that distinction is exactly what 6.2 seems to  
>> make, and I don't understand why you think it doesn't.
>
> Re-reading, it does express that!
>
> (By the way my understanding of what we appeared to disagree on during  
> the last call was a bit different: I thought the issue was about how an  
> >XPath expression in the nested bind evaluated given its context. But  
> maybe I misunderstood that.)
>
> To clarify: your point is that if section 6.2 expresses both what  
> happens:
>
> 1. with single-item bindings
> 2. and with sequence bindings
>
> then text which is specific to `<bind>`:
>
> 1. does not need to be present
> 2. or worse, must not be present or there is room to interpret the text  
> as requiring more repetitions of nested `<bind>` elements than is  
> desired.
>
> Is this a correct understanding?
Exactly.

>
> As far as I am concerned, as long as we agree on the actual effect that  
> nesting binds has, then we are good.
Brilliant! I shall modify the text accordingly.

Steven