W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2013

[Bug 21314] update dependencies type="feature"

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:15:13 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-21314-523-nZ6it4OJ7X@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21314

--- Comment #1 from O'Neil Delpratt <oneil@saxonica.com> ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> 1) shouldn't there be a 1 to 1 relation between the official optional
> features as defined in the spec
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-30/#id-conform-optional-features)
> and the features defined in FOTS?

The intent was that the values under dependency type='feature' should contain
the group of optional-features from the relevant section in the spec and a
derived group of features which are defined throughout the spec as optional for
implementations. For example in the spec (see:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-30/#id-basics) it states  that the namespace-axis
is optional for implementations.


> 1.1) If not, IMHO the ones that are not defined in the spec should have some
> information added in the catalog-schema.xsd such that it's clear for
> everyone what they stand for.

The features gathered from the query dependencies.xq do all appear somewhere in
the spec. Nevertheless, as you have stated we need to document them somewhere.

I hope to do this. Any suggestions?

We can provide some documentation in catalog-schema.xsd relating to the
references of the features in the spec, but this is only possible as comment
documentation. Anything more we would need to be using schema 1.1, which is not
good, we would be destabilize people's test drivers.

We could also do this all in query to map the features to references in the
spec.



> 
> 2) From what I understand, the 'schemaValidation' and 'schemaImport' were
> merged into 'schemaAware' right?
> If so the test cases need to be updated also.
> Also 'moduleImport' should be updated to 'module' for consistency to the
> spec.

Maybe you are right. But I am not sure. Maybe someone can comment on this.


> 3) Should the spec add an optional feature for 'namespace-axis' ?

No. I think I have have addressed this under point 1.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 10:15:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:52 UTC