[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: [xsl] XSLT 3.0: Question about the rules for handling duplicate declarations of static variables

Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT 3.0: Question about the rules for handling duplicate declarations of static variables
From: "Michael Kay mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 10:43:11 -0000

Actually, it should say "functions" rather than "function items" since XDM 3.0
renamed function items as functions.

The intended meaning of the phrase is "The value of the variable must not be a
sequence one of whose items is a function", or perhaps more formally, if $V is
the value of the variable then the expression

some $v in $V satisfies $v instance of function(*)

must be false.

This is because it is not possible to determine whether two functions are "the

Michael Kay
+44 (0) 118 946 5893

On 22 Nov 2014, at 22:04, Dimitre Novatchev dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx
<xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In section 9.6 "Static Variables and Parameters" of the 2nd Last Call
> of the XSLT 3.0 specification,
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-xslt-30-20141002/#static-params), the
> second of the two additional constraints listed, says:
> "... and (b) if the variables are initialized (that is, if the
> elements are xsl:variable elements, or if they are xsl:param elements
> and no value for the parameter is externally supplied) then the values
> of both variables must be identical, and must not contain function
> items."
> It is not clear to me what is the exact meaning of the phrase "must
> not contain function items". I see several possible meanings:
> 1. Must not contain references to functions. (This seems unlikely,
> because a static expression can contain references to functions -- but
> maybe just in the case of static variables conflict this is
> forbidden?)
> 2. Must not contain references to any <xsl:function> (an xsl-function
> only, not any function)
> 3. Must not contain a definition of an inline function-item.
> Could someone, please, specify which of these three possible meaning
> is intended in the above phrase, or if none, then what is the intended
> meaning of this phrase?
> --
> Cheers,
> Dimitre Novatchev

Current Thread