- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 13:53:39 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
This thread just emphasises that we _must_ carefully define what the
XPath context is for every place in our spec. where an XPath appears,
and for component execution.
If we do that, isn't your problem solved?
So, e.g., we say something like
[Wrt p:option . . . select=XPE] The XPath context for evaluation of
XPE has the document II of the infoset determined by the content of
the p:option as the current node, and all the *in-scope options* in
the inherited environment of the surrounding step visible as bound
(XPath) variables, along with appropriate bindings for p:episode and
p:document-position.
and
[Wrt step implementations] The XPath context for evaluation of
user-authored xpath expressions evaluated by step implementations
SHOULD include at least all the *in-scope options* in the step
environment visible as bound (XPath) variables, along with
appropriate bindings for p:episode and p:document-position.
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGTFBUkjnJixAXWBoRAiXPAJwOlKM8SOQOq0FX4lslRR9+UKuKqQCdH8Yf
89+UPPadVkbCzxCthcCYHmk=
=tvL+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 12:54:14 UTC