This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 4620 - [XSLT 2.0] Implicit final result tree
Summary: [XSLT 2.0] Implicit final result tree
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XSLT 2.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Recommendation
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Kay
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-06-10 17:28 UTC by Michael Kay
Modified: 2007-10-10 21:48 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Kay 2007-06-10 17:28:17 UTC
In section 2.4 there is a paragraph that reads:

"If the initial template has an as attribute, then the result sequence of the initial template is checked against the required type in the same way as for any other template. If this result sequence is non-empty, then it is used to construct an implicit final result tree, following the rules described in 5.7.1 Constructing Complex Content:...."

The natural way to read this paragraph is to assume that the conditional "If the initial template has an as attribute..." applies to the whole paragraph, so that where there is no "as" attribute, the paragraph does not apply. However, this isn't the intended meaning: the conditional is intended to apply only to the first sentence. I suggest a rewording as follows:

<new>
The result sequence produced by evaluating the initial template is handled as follows:

1. If the initial template has an as attribute, then the result sequence is checked against the required type in the same way as for any other template.

2. If the result sequence is non-empty, then it is used to construct an implicit final result tree, following the rules described in 5.7.1 Constructing Complex Content:....
</new>
Comment 1 Michael Kay 2007-06-21 16:53:29 UTC
The WG discussed this on 21 Jun 2007 and agreed with the proposed rearrangement.
Comment 2 Michael Kay 2007-06-21 17:49:12 UTC
Erratum E11 drafted