- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 13:24:30 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Norman Walsh writes: > | [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 > > Why should? Why "at least"? 'SHOULD' because I can imagine steps which define XPath evaluation wrt private rules. 'At least' for similar reasons -- I can imagine steps which define private binding rules, e.g. from secondary inputs. > | environment visible as bound (XPath) variables, along with > | appropriate bindings for p:episode and p:document-position. > > I'm happy to resolve this issue along these lines. It blurs the line > slightly between what the pipeline processor is doing and what the step > is doing (establishing the appropriate context requires quite a bit of > cooperation at the boundary), but I think it makes the expressions the > simplest to write. Yup, that was the goal. 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) iD8DBQFGUY9+kjnJixAXWBoRAtKgAJ45OCS6tcQR/W0TQGu2I7d0y85QxgCfRSj/ pPodtIim03qS7fukHb0vREY= =ygI7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 21 May 2007 12:24:40 UTC