CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 13:19:43 GMT
content-type: text/html
content-encoding: gzip
last-modified: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:50:22 GMT
cache-control: max-age=2592000, public
expires: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 13:19:43 GMT
vary: Accept-Encoding
access-control-allow-origin: *
x-request-id: 98cea695de5325e0
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552015; preload
x-frame-options: deny
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
cf-cache-status: EXPIRED
set-cookie: __cf_bm=PKSNfgBtCI2pzBjCJZ.T0_mZ6i2OjJY15sja1U.X4Us-1760188783-1.0.1.1-l7Fb5dVU1ZKlk5nYD7VqFDv3v5gHPRlZqZtQ3R6WVvq0zYviVFhdC.8.AcdNkGfedLXIvx3gilUcJ0aO0.1lwCnpdMjAu7K53orx6lW_AiU; path=/; expires=Sat, 11-Oct-25 13:49:43 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 98cea695de5325e0-BLR
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
[XQuery] XQ-IBM-006: Context of a function body from Don Chamberlin on 2004-02-11 (public-qt-comments@w3.org from February 2004)
[XQuery] XQ-IBM-006: Context of a function body
- From: Don Chamberlin <chamberl@almaden.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:50:20 -0800
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF5F28FEED.6410D18E-ON88256E37.0080F21E-88256E37.0082F42B@us.ibm.com>
(IBM-XQ-006) Section 3.1.5 (Function Calls): This section states that a function does not inherit a focus (in other words, the context item, context position, and context length are initially undefined inside the body of a function). The section should also say something about the other parts of the static and dynamic context. Are these inherited from the module in which the function is defined (as opposed to the calling module)? Are there any consistency rules between the contexts of the defining and calling modules? For example, can they have different default collations or default namespaces? Must their current date/time and implicit timezones be consistent? Can a variable that is assigned a value in the calling module be seen inside a function body? Can a document that is in the available documents of the calling module be seen inside a function body? --Don Chamberlin
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2004 18:50:37 UTC