W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > November 2010

[Bug 7860] [XPath 2.1] Union type as declared function argument

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:11:16 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PGXrw-0001ez-33@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7860

Henry Zongaro <zongaro@ca.ibm.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |zongaro@ca.ibm.com

--- Comment #4 from Henry Zongaro <zongaro@ca.ibm.com> 2010-11-11 14:11:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I'm tempted to use the existing AtomicType production, modifying the semantics
> to match the proposed semantics for AType.

So, you're musing about something like this.  Leaving this production as it is:

[172]    AtomicType ::=  EQName

and changing the following sentence in section 2.5.4.2 to replace "defined as
an atomic type" to " defined as an atomic type or a union type"?

"An ItemType consisting simply of an EQName is interpreted as an AtomicType. An
AtomicType AtomicType matches an atomic value whose actual type is AT if
derives-from( AT, AtomicType ) is true. If the expanded QName of an AtomicType
is not defined as an atomic type in the in-scope schema types, a static error
is raised [err:XPST0051]."


If I've understood you correctly, I think that as a reader I would find it
quite confusing to have to read "AtomicType" as meaning "atomic type or union
type," but "atomic type" as meaning "atomic type."

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 14:11:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:08 GMT