- From: <Toman_Vojtech@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:29:11 -0500
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
> > 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. I read it more as: "If no explicit connection [for p:xpath-context] is provided, ..." - which is not allowed by the schema > > > 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. It is not an error to use p:empty in p:xpath-context, which is what the prose in 4.4.1 seems to be about, but I am still not sure what is the meaning of no p:xpath-context *at all*. Regards, Vojtech
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 13:29:55 UTC