- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:06:15 +0000
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Norman Walsh writes:
> "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>> More on p:uri-scope -- the idea is that there is an implicit
>> p:uri-scope around the entire top-level pipeline, and that every
>> p:uri-scope acts as a scope for an *available documents* collection,
>> mapping from URIs to documents, which is initially empty. Any URI
>> resolution action works with respect to its nearest (lexically)
>> surrounding uri-scope, and either uses what it finds there, or does a
>> 'fetch' and caches the result there.
>
> Does a nested scope inherit from its ancestor scopes, or explicitly
> ignore them?
Wrt *available document* -- doesn't inherit unless you include an
identity mapping. . . I suppose we could include a switch to do that
across the board. Hmm. Maybe the default should be the other way
around, that is, you don't get a new empty *available document* set
unless you ask for it.
Wrt mappings, I think here the default is clearly that you do inherit,
but that you _may_ shadow an inherited mapping.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, 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 from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 18:06:45 UTC