This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Section 3.9.4 has a paragraph that starts: "In the above example, the WindowStartCondition and WindowEndCondition are both true(), which causes each tuple in the binding sequence to be in a separate window." For "tuple" read "item". The binding sequence is a sequence of items, not a sequence of tuples. (Also, I think "true", perhaps in code font, is more appropriate than "true()".) (In passing, I note that this section talks of the items in a sequence as if they are necessarily distinct. When we change the above to say "causes each item in the binding sequence to be in a separate window" we are expecting the reader to understand that when the sequence is ($node, $node, $node, $node, $node) then by "each item" we are thinking of the sequence as containing five items, rather than one. Most of the time the meaning is clear. Occasionally, though, the usage jars: for example the sentence "Thus, no item that occurs in one window can occur in another window drawn from the same binding sequence." could easily be misread as saying that if a node $N occurs in one window, then the same node cannot also occur in another window; but if $N appears twice in the binding sequence, then this reading is incorrect.)
(In reply to comment #0) > Section 3.9.4 has a paragraph that starts: "In the above example, the > WindowStartCondition and WindowEndCondition are both true(), which causes each > tuple in the binding sequence to be in a separate window." > > For "tuple" read "item". The binding sequence is a sequence of items, not a > sequence of tuples. > > (Also, I think "true", perhaps in code font, is more appropriate than > "true()".) Fixed. > (In passing, I note that this section talks of the items in a sequence as if > they are necessarily distinct. When we change the above to say "causes each > item in the binding sequence to be in a separate window" we are expecting the > reader to understand that when the sequence is ($node, $node, $node, $node, > $node) then by "each item" we are thinking of the sequence as containing five > items, rather than one. Most of the time the meaning is clear. Occasionally, > though, the usage jars: for example the sentence "Thus, no item that occurs in > one window can occur in another window drawn from the same binding sequence." > could easily be misread as saying that if a node $N occurs in one window, then > the same node cannot also occur in another window; but if $N appears twice in > the binding sequence, then this reading is incorrect.) For that one sentence, I added a parenthetical phrase to clarify: <quote> Thus, no item that occurs in one window can occur in another window drawn from the same binding sequence <phrase diff="add">(unless the sequence contains the same item more than once).</phrase> </quote>