W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms-editor@w3.org > October 2007

RE: Section 7 (PR#139)

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:29:25 +0100
To: "'John Boyer'" <xforms-issues@mn.aptest.com>
Cc: <w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org>, <www-forms-editor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <026501c81674$302a8710$6501a8c0@turtle>

That's fine.

Undefined namespace prefixes are another possibility, in case you are
enumerating them. 

In fact XPath 1.0 doesn't distinguish very carefully between static and
dynamic errors, so count("xyz") is an error that can be reported either
statically or dynamically, similarly ($x|3).

Michael Kay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Boyer [mailto:xforms-issues@mn.aptest.com] 
> Sent: 24 October 2007 20:00
> To: mike@saxonica.com
> Cc: w3c-xml-query-wg@w3.org; www-forms-editor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Section 7 (PR#139)
> 
> Hi Michael,
> 
> The working group agrees that this is a problem and will fix 
> it in the specification.  For XPath 1.0, the static errors 
> appear to be limited to expression well-formedness, undefined 
> variable references and undefined function references as 
> issues with the [context node, position, size] are handled 
> separately, i.e. their non-availability implies not executing 
> the xpath and behaving as if empty nodeset were returned.
> 
> Please let us know if you have any further concerns about this issue.
> 
> Thank you,
> John Boyer
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >     D. "XPath expressions that are not syntactically valid": should
> >     cover all static errors, not just syntax errors. (Other static
> >     errors include, for example, references to functions or 
> variables
> >     not present in the context, and type errors detected 
> statically).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 19:29:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:12:16 GMT