W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2015

[Bug 27735] New: [XP31] Confusing Note in 2.3.1 regarding limits

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 17:51:00 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-27735-523@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27735

            Bug ID: 27735
           Summary: [XP31] Confusing Note in 2.3.1 regarding limits
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Candidate Recommendation
          Hardware: PC
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XPath 3.1
          Assignee: jonathan.robie@gmail.com
          Reporter: mike@saxonica.com
        QA Contact: public-qt-comments@w3.org

I am having great difficulty understanding the Note at the end of 2.3.1:

<quote>
In addition to the errors defined in this specification, an implementation may
raise a dynamic error for a reason beyond the scope of this specification. For
example, limitations may exist on the maximum numbers or sizes of various
objects. An error must be raised if such a limitation is exceeded
[err:XPDY0130].

Note:

Any limits on primitives defined by the XML and XSD specifications that differ
from what these specifications state are implementation-defined, and must be
documented. See 5.3 Data Model Conformance. [err:XPDY0130] should not be raised
for these.
</quote>

I'm not quite sure whether "defined by" is referring to "limits" or to
"primitives"; I don't know what "primitives" means; I can't work out what "that
differ" refers to; I'm not sure what "these specifications" are. I'm not sure
whether "are implementation-defined" means the limits are
implementation-defined or that "these specifications" state the limits to be
implementation-defined. Why does it say "and must be documented" - isn't that
true of everything that's implementation-defined? And is the "should" an RFC
"should"?

Perhaps it would all be much clearer if there was an example of something for
which XPDY0130 is appropriate, and an example of something for which it is not.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 3 January 2015 17:51:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:46:00 UTC