- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:01:19 +0000
- To: "Toman\, Vojtech" <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
- Cc: "public-xml-processing-model-wg\@w3.org" <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Toman, Vojtech writes: > I took a look at the spec and the test suite and what looks as > potentially contradictory prose in the spec (section 2.9: "Variables > and options share the same scope and may shadow each other." > vs. section 3.2: "That is, no option or variable may lexically > shadow another option or variable with the same name.") is, I think, > actually correct. > > . . . > > But you be able to do this: > > <p:pipeline> > <p:option name="foo" select="..."/> > <p:group> > <p:variable name="foo" select="..."/> > ... > > The key point about section 3.2 is that it forbids declaring > options/variables with the same name *in the same environment*, but > not in different environments. There's an ambiguity that was the source of my confusion, and that I'm still concerned about: the environment is a _data structure_, and the environment of the p:group in the above example has a binding for 'foo' in it from the p:option. So I thought the first quote above would rule out the shadowing. If OTOH you read 'environment' as naming a region of the XML tree, rooted in the p:group element, then the problem doesn't arise. . . 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 Wednesday, 20 February 2013 17:01:49 UTC