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 24495 - Missing posture for streamability of xsl:try
Summary: Missing posture for streamability of xsl:try
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XSLT 3.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Last Call drafts
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: 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: 2014-02-05 01:46 UTC by Abel Braaksma
Modified: 2014-05-15 14:00 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Abel Braaksma 2014-02-05 01:46:20 UTC
Under 19.8.4.36 Streamability of xsl:try (http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt-30/#streamability-xsl-try), posture is missing.

I think for rule (1), the posture is transmission.
And for rule 2, the posture should be roaming.
Comment 1 Abel Braaksma 2014-02-05 01:59:41 UTC
Note also that the opening line now reads "The sweep of...", which should be "The posture and sweep of...".
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2014-02-11 13:31:55 UTC
We discussed this briefly in Prague.  It is not in fact editorial; the editor should mull the question over and return with a proposal for posture.
Comment 3 Michael Kay 2014-02-20 17:04:32 UTC
I believe the correct rules are:

The posture and sweep of the instruction are the first of the following that applies:

If the select expression and/or sequence constructor of every xsl:catch element is motionless, then the posture and sweep of the select expression and/or sequence constructor of the xsl:try element (whichever is present);

Otherwise, roaming and free-ranging.

I have applied this change to the editor's draft, subject to WG approval.

(Note, we could in theory do better for try/catch, for example we could allow the main try expression to be motionless and the catch clauses to be consuming. But I don't think it's worth the effort.)
Comment 4 Abel Braaksma 2014-02-27 17:03:09 UTC
The bug report related to the last para in the previous comment is bug 24496.
Comment 5 Michael Kay 2014-04-16 08:32:58 UTC
I believe this is now resolved.