W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > November 2005

[Bug 2447] XPST0008 and XPST0081 used interchangeably

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 09:08:52 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1EXxZ6-0007J5-R4@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2447

           Summary: XPST0008 and XPST0081 used interchangeably
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Candidate Recommendation
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XPath
        AssignedTo: chamberl@almaden.ibm.com
        ReportedBy: mike@saxonica.com
         QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org


Previously raised on internal WG lists by Michael Kay at

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-query/2005Nov/0000.html

and previously by Jonathan Robie at

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-query-wg/2005Oct/0024.html


The two error codes XPST0008 and XPST0081 used interchangeably when an
expression contains a QName whose prefix has not been declared. There are
conflicting statements about which should be used in a particular context. 

Section 2 Basics makes a general statement that XPST0081 is used for this
condition, and there are specific mentions for computed element and
attribute constructors, pragmas, and option declarations. However section
3.7.1.2 says that XPST0008 is used for the first two cases.

Section 2.2.3 makes a general statement that XPST0008 is used, as does 4.12.
There are specific mentions for node tests and direct element and attribute
constructors.

In XPath, there is the general statement that XPST0081 is used, but all the
specific instances use XPST0008.

I suggest that we standardise on XPST0081 as it is more specific.
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 09:08:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:42 GMT