- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:59:59 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28294
Bug ID: 28294
Summary: 2.4.4 Input Sources informal description
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Version: Candidate Recommendation
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: XPath 3.1
Assignee: jonathan.robie@gmail.com
Reporter: patrick@durusau.net
QA Contact: public-qt-comments@w3.org
2.4.4 Input Sources
"The input functions are described informally here; they are defined in [XQuery
and XPath Functions and Operators 3.1]."
Followed by a bulleted list of input functions supported by XPath 3.1 with
informal definitions,
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions-31/#fns-on-docs defines:
14.8.1 fn:doc
14.8.2 fn:doc-available
14.8.3 fn:collection
14.8.4 fn:uri-collection
14.8.5 fn:unparsed-text
14.8.6 fn:unparsed-text-lines
14.8.7 fn:unparsed-text-available
14.8.8 fn:environment-variable
14.8.9 fn:available-environment-variables
A differently ordered listing in 2.4.4 makes comparison more difficult than
otherwise necessary.
I take it that XPath 3.1 does NOT support fn:doc-available and
fn:unparsed-text-lines?
Wouldn't it be better to use the same list order as in Functions and to note
the omissions?
Not to mention dropping the informal definitions in favor of the ones in
Functions. Reasoning partial information isn't as useful as complete
information.
"These input functions are all specified in [XQuery and XPath Functions and
Operators 3.1], which specifies error conditions and other details not
described here."
Why the second reference to [XQuery and XPath Functions and Operators 3.1]?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 01:00:01 UTC