Re: Variable references in path expressions

>
> > I am concern about evaluating only the rhs. The following
> > production shows that we can do something to the rhs of "/"
> > prior to evaluating the expression.
> >
> > [67]    PathExpr    ::=    ("/" RelativePathExpr?)
> >                                     | ("//" RelativePathExpr)
> >                                     | RelativePathExpr /* gn: leading-lone-slash */
> > [68]    RelativePathExpr    ::=    StepExpr (("/" | "//") StepExpr)*
>
> Why do you think these productions show that? It's the normalization
> and evaluation rules, not the grammar productions, that dictate
> whether we can "do something" to a StepExpr prior to evaluating the
> expression.
>
This is where I think our interpretation differs. I take it that you
are inferring from the normalization and evaluation rules as layout
in formal semantics. Now, I see those rules being manifested
depending on how the semantics of the expression is to be fullfilled.
If there is agreement on how $a/$b should be processed, then
those evaluation rules has to fine tuned accordingly.
If there is a will there is a way.

I suspect $a/$b is going to be a very common construct
the result however is going to catch a lot of people by surprise.
Its just going to take some explaining and whether it will be
convincing is entirely another matter.