- 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