This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
In 'sum(a/b/c)' sample the argument is referred as the argument of 'count' function instead of 'sum'. http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt-30/#general-streamability-examples "sum(a/b/c) is grounded and consuming, because the operand (the argument to the ***count*** function) is striding and consuming (see earlier example) and the operand usage is absorption."
http://marker.to/gxwJHI
Also, I would like to see one or two examples for the case where OU of Transmission with crawling and cardinality > 1, and one with OU of Transmission with crawling and cardinality = 1.
Thanks for reporting it. I've fixed the typo mentioned, and I'll leave the bug open so we can try and allocate effort for extra examples as requested.
Some examples as requested by Eugene: - zero-or-one(div//p) has OU of transmission and its argument, div//p has posture crawling, sweep of consuming. The result of the analysis following the GSR makes this consuming and striding (rule 2.d.iii). - fn:tail(head//section) has OU of transmission and its argument, head//section, is crawling and consuming. The result of the analysis following the GSR makes this crawling and consuming (rule 2.d.iv). - exactly-one(div | p) has OU of transmission and its argument, div | p, is crawling and consuming. The result of the analysis following the GSR makes this striding and consuming (rule 2.d.iii). - fn:unordered(head | section) has OU of transmission and its argument, head | section, is crawling and consuming. The result of the analysis following the GSR makes this crawling and consuming (rule 2.d.iv). In fact, I am unsure whether the rules for fn:tail correctly make it crawling and consuming, I tend to think it should be free-ranging. For fn:unordered it does not seem to matter.
I would really like to request that people who submit (new) bugs to PLEASE use the convention of having the first bit of the bug title indicating the document against which the bug is being filed -- in the case of this bug, that would be something like "[XSLT30]" or "[XT30]" or something similar. Thanks!
Hi Jim, we can't really ask that from people outside the working group to do so (as was the case here), and I myself was not aware of the requirement, but I will do so in subsequent bug-entries, or fix the title if necessary. I assume it is not possible to let BugZilla do this automatically? It is something that is easily forgotten. I'll fix this title.
Some further examples based on those provided in comment 4 have been added to the spec.