W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2016

[Bug 29622] [XQ31] Atomization in Postfix Lookup, Unary Lookup

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 17:18:06 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-29622-523-amrMB1Pkxj@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |mike@saxonica.com

--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> ---
I agree that we should make this change. I think the main justification is
consistency: in every other case where we have an operator (or function) where
one of the operands (or arguments) is required to be an atomic sequence, we
atomize the operand as a whole, rather than atomizing each item in the operand

For example A=B means (some $a in data(A), $b in data(B) satisfies $a eq $b);
it does not mean (some $a in A, $b in B satisfies data($a) eq data($b)).

We don't have any language or machinery to say "the required type of the RHS is
a sequence of items S such that the result of atomizing each item in S is a
single atomic value". We do have machinery to say "the required type of the RHS
(after applying the function conversion rules) is an atomic sequence". Let's
re-use the machinery we have rather than doing something different.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2016 17:18:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 24 May 2016 17:18:44 UTC