I think the erratum is wrong and I've forwarded Kasimier's note to the XSL
WG.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Florent Georges [mailto:darkman_spam@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 20 April 2006 13:32
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE:  XSLT 1.0 - errata - E37
>
> "Buchcik, Kasimier" wrote:
>
> > I learned that the scope of visibility of an xsl:param/xsl:variable
> > was reformulated in the errata
> > http://www.w3.org/1999/11/REC-xslt-19991116-errata/#E37 :
> > "In this case, the binding is visible for the descendants of all
> > following siblings that are not xsl:fallback instructions.".
>
> > For me, this sentence seems to exclude the "following siblings"
> > from the scope; an error in the errata?
>
>   Interesting question.  I'm not an expert of the XSLT 1.0
> REC, but I'd say it is more something like "[...] for the
> following siblings that are not xsl:fallback instructions,
> and their descendants".  It's what the XSLT 2.0 draft says:
>
>     A local variable binding element is visible for all
>     following siblings and their descendants, with two
>     exceptions: it is not visible in any region where it is
>     shadowed by another variable binding, and it is not
>     visible within the subtree rooted at an xsl:fallback
>     instruction that is a sibling of the variable binding
>     element. The binding is not visible for the xsl:variable
>     or xsl:param element itself.
>
>   Regards,
>
> --drkm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> _____________
> Faites de Yahoo! votre page d'accueil sur le web pour
> retrouver directement vos services prifiris : virifiez vos
> nouveaux mails, lancez vos recherches et suivez l'actualiti
> en temps riel.
> Rendez-vous sur http://fr.yahoo.com/set