Re: Remarks on W3C Editor's Draft 24 January 2008 ( part III)

On Feb 11, 2008 4:01 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:

> / Innovimax SARL <innovimax@gmail.com> was heard to say:
> [...]
> | But "visible" is still used everywhere without formal definition
>
> Ok, I attempted to add one at the top of 3.2.
>
> |> |  cannot determine will give the same result in XPath 1.0 that it
> would
> |> have
> |> | given if XPath 2.0 had been used
> |> |  ]]
> |> |  is it possible to point to a spec for this sentence ?
> |>
> |> Do you have a suggestion?
> |
> | I fear I've none. May be
> | http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#id-backwards-compatibility ?
>
> I'm not sure that's sufficient, so I'm inclined to leave it to the
> discretion
> of the implementor.
>
> |> | This sentence
> |> | [[
> |> | All the step types in a pipeline must have unique names: it is a
> static
> |> | error (err:XS0036) if any step type name is built-in and/or declared
> or
> |> | defined more than once in the same scope.
> |> | ]]
> |> |
> |> | is a bit troublesome : what is "in the same scope" ? it is clear that
> |> there
> |> | is a scope for "step names" but not clear for "step types".
> |>
> |> The beginning of 3.2, "The scope of the names of the step types is..."
> |> attempts to explain that. Is it unclear, or do you think it's
> incorrect?
> |
> | No I just think it should be forward referenced here
>
> But that error is *in* section 3.2. What would you like the reference to
> point to?


Ok brain cramp again. Sorry for the noise

Mohamed


-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €