- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:23:54 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2y6ile74l.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Toman_Vojtech@emc.com" <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com> writes: > Only the Chair knows, I am not sure any more... :) I guess only the minutes know then. Or the drafts. > Section 4.4 (p:choose) says: "The p:choose can specify the context node > against which the XPath expressions that occur on each branch are > evaluated. The context node is specified as a connection for the > p:xpath-context. If no explicit connection is provided, the default > p:xpath-context is the document on the default readable port." > > But Section 4.4.1 (p:xpath-context) says: "In an XPath 1.0 > implementation, if the context node is connected to p:empty, or is > unconnected and the default readable port is undefined, an empty > document node is used instead as the context. In an XPath 2.0 > implementation, the context item is undefined." That text has been present in one form or another since the 20 September 2007 draft. > I wonder if these two paragraphs are actually correct. Especially the > sentence in 4.4: "If no explicit connection is provided, ...". If it is > about p:xpath-context, then it is not correct because you now always > have to provide a binding in p:xpath-context. I think it's ok. You can leave out the p:xpath-context entirely which makes the connection implicit. > You can also read the text > in 4.4 that if you don't specify p:xpath-context in p:choose, you don't > have to have a default readable port. > > I am also not sure how to interpret this: is no explicit binding in > p:choose and no default readable port an error, or is it OK? I think the prose in 4.4.1 is pretty clear that it's not an error. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | If you're strong enough, there *are* no http://nwalsh.com/ | precedents.--Scott Fitzgerald
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 13:24:33 UTC