- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:45:10 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <87ejjnm5vd.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Alessandro Vernet <avernet@orbeon.com> was heard to say: | On 7/4/07, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote: |> / ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) was heard to say: |> | p:xpath-context |> | (p:empty | p:pipe | p:document | p:inline )? |> | |> | A special case -- exactly one document, or none. A dynamic error |> | if p:empty is used and a 'test' XPath expression appeals to the |> | context-node or context-position. |> |> Fixed. | | And p:empty is accepted? XPath expressions are evaluated in a context, | and a context node is part of that context. Even if some expressions | do not use the context node, my understanding is that XPath requires a | context node to be present. In fact (at least some) XPath libraries | enforce this by require a context node. So what would the context node | be when p:empty is used? It doesn't matter because an expression that refers to the context is an error if there isn't a context. It seems to me that requiring a context for an expression like "$foo" is even more problematic for users than requiring implementors to deal with not having a context in that case. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If today was a fish, I'd throw it back http://nwalsh.com/ | in.
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 11:45:23 UTC