28122 2015-03-02 09:03:38 +0000 [xslt 3.0] the function xsl:original 2015-10-29 09:50:40 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XSLT 3.0 Candidate Recommendation PC All CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 mike mike abel.braaksma public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 118229 0 mike 2015-03-02 09:03:38 +0000 We say in 3.6.3.3: <quote> Within the declaration of an overriding component (that is, a component whose declaration is a child of xsl:override), where the overridden component has public visibility, it is possible to use the name xsl:original as a symbolic reference to the overridden component: <snip/> * Within an overriding stylesheet function, xsl:original() may be used to call the overridden stylesheet function. </quote> There's a need for more precision here. (a) a function call on xsl:original will usually have arguments (b) symbolic references to functions may also appear in the form of partial function application (e.g. xsl:original(?, 3)), or named function references (e.g. xsl:original#2). We need to make it clear that these are legal. (c) we should make it clear that xsl:original cannot be used in static expressions, e.g. within use-when. (This also applies to the variable reference $xsl:original) (d) we should make it clear that dynamic references to xsl:original, e.g in function-available(), function-lookup(), or xsl:evaluate, will not succeed. Again this also applies to the variable reference $xsl:original. 118605 1 abel.braaksma 2015-03-15 12:01:20 +0000 > (b) symbolic references to functions may also appear in the form of partial > function application (e.g. xsl:original(?, 3)), or named function references > (e.g. xsl:original#2). We need to make it clear that these are legal. Or that they are not, because it would break information hiding. Related, and possibly (partially) a duplicate: Bug 28210. 118711 2 mike 2015-03-20 12:16:18 +0000 I was asked to propose detailed changes. The proposal can be found at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-wg/2015Mar/0037.html (member-only link) 118738 3 abel.braaksma 2015-03-20 17:45:43 +0000 *** Bug 28210 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 119413 4 mike 2015-04-09 21:34:58 +0000 The proposal was accepted and has been applied.