- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:18:41 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5297 ------- Comment #6 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com 2007-12-13 00:18 ------- > In some of those formulations, specific XPath axes > have been made illegal in the XPath expressions. > In others, the input tree has been truncated so > that any expression which attempts to refer to > nodes outside the subtree will evaluate to the > empty set. Other formulations are possible which > involve neither syntactic restrictions on XPath > expressions nor tree surgery. The details of the > spec prose are not of interest here; what is at > issue is the goal the WG has been trying to > achieve, which the description of the issue argues > should be revisited. If the goal is dropped, then > I think the implications for the spec prose are > obvious enough. OK. That's what I wanted to be sure I understood. Thank you. Noah
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 00:18:47 UTC