- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:26:40 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <877isrg4in.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say: | I believe the consequence of this is that either of the following are | correct: | | <my:xmpl> | <p:import-parameter name="my:parm"/> | </my:xmpl> | | <my:xmpl> | <p:parameter name="my:parm" select="$my:parm"/> | </my:xmpl> | | But I have to say the second is dodgy -- it's not clear what | environment is appealed to for the evaluation of the variable | reference, and the prose in 5.7.3 suggests it's actually not allowed. | | I think this should be allowed, partly because at least some | programming languages allow this -- consider LISP, where | | (lambda (x) | (let (x (+ x x)) | (* x x))) | | computes, somewhat obscurely, (2x)^2, and Python, where | | x=3 | | def f(x=x+x): | return x*x | | print f() | | will print 36, but more importantly because the environment which the | p:import-parameter should use clearly does _not_ create a loop, and | the XPath should be seeing the same environment. I agree. | In other words, and perhaps we should say this explicitly, the | in-scope parameters of the environment are _only_ available in two | ways: | | 1) via XPath variable references; | 2) via p:import-parameter. | | I guess I think every place we allow an XPath we should say which | environment it is whose in-scope parameters provide the variable | binding static context, and likewise whereever p:import-parameter is | allowed we should say which environment it is whose in-scope | parameters are available for import. When we have both, as for | e.g. vanilla steps, that environment should be the same in both cases. Yes. | [Final quibble -- I find 5.7.2 quite confusing -- the bit in | pink/purple is not actually a valid parameter use -- I think the prose | of 5.7.2 and 5.7.3 should be collapsed, and the first pink/purple box | eliminated.] It's perfectly valid in a declare-step; but I agree that 5.7.2 is a strong candidate for a rewrite. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh XML Standards Architect Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 22:26:47 UTC