[sc34wg3] Removing added scope from <mergeMap>

[M.Altheim]

Steve Pepper writes:
[...]
> Having said that, I think those in favour of retaining added scope
> need to take Geir Ove's posting on "How to process <mergeMap>=20
> and added scopes?" seriously. We don't want to put out a standard
> where behaviour is left undefined, so how can we make it watertight?

Steve,

To my mind, behaviour is always based on the context of usage,
and unless one is prepared to delimit the entirety of the=20
possible uses of XTM 2.0, I don't see that making it "watertight"
is a reasonable goal. I don't know of any standards off the top
of my head where behaviours are completely defined; SGML or XML,
for example. This is where the concept of "normative" gets=20
really muddy.

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                          http://www.altheim.com/murray/
Strategic Services Development Manager
The Open University Library and Learning Resources Centre
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

     Short of taking the current president of the United States
     by the scruff of the neck and dunking his head deep into the
     rapidly melting Arctic ice cap, what more did the Earth need
     to do to make someone listen to its cry for help?
                                -- Simon Schama, The Story So Far
     http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1675173,00.html