- From: Tim Mills <tim@cbcl.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:53:58 +0000
- To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
- Cc: public-xsl-query@w3.org
On 09/11/2015 15:00, Michael Kay wrote:
>>> But it doesn’t make it clear what the absence of the component means. Does it mean there will be no context item, or does it mean we don’t know whether or not there will be a context item, or does it mean there will be a context item but we don’t know anything about its type?
>>
>> None of the above. If the context item static type is absent, then the context item is out-of-scope, just as in the case where the static context contains no mapping for the static type of a variable name. This leans me back in the direction of XPST0008.
> Is your statement "the context item is out-of-scope" any different from my statement "there will be no context item"?
If by "there will be no context item" you mean "the context item has no
value" then yes, there is a difference, just as there is a difference
between the queries
$out-of-scope
and
declare variable $in-scope-but-no-value-supplied external;
in-scope-but-no-value-supplied
Cheers,
Tim
Received on Monday, 9 November 2015 15:54:30 UTC