I think the issue may be a misinterpretation of the term "map tree", which is used in this statement: For a given key there is at most one effective definition within a key space.
A key definition is the effective definition for a given key if it is the first, in document order, within the map document that contains it, and is the first in the map tree in breadth-first order.
Map tree is defined in the preceding section titled "Key spaces": For the purposes of determining the effective key definitions for the key space represented by a given root map, a *map tree* is determined by considering only directly addressed, local scope maps descending from the root map.
(Emphasis mine)
If you took "map tree" to mean "the tree of elements within a map" I can see how you might get confused.
However, the statement above would be self contradictory if map tree had that meaning.
I also see that "map tree" is not formally defined in the Linking and Addressing terminology section--it probably should be.
At one time I think we did have an illustrative example of how key definitions work but I could simply be remembering the early work we did to define the mechanism.
I certainly agree than an example or two would help to clarify things.
Cheers, E. On 1/21/11 1:17 PM, "Grosso, Paul" <> wrote:
> Sounds like the spec isn't clear enough here. >
> First let's hear from others to make sure we all agree
> on what should be the case. >
> Then let's figure out how to make it clear enough in
> the spec that smart people like Eliot and Chris and
> Kris don't come to different conclusions reading the
> same spec. >
> paul > >>
