W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2009

[Bug 7059] Forking XPath

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:51:43 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MmExz-00006H-Mt@wiggum.w3.org>

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |NEEDSINFO

--- Comment #34 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2009-09-11 22:51:43 ---
> This is a *lot* closer. I would change "must be treated as if it instead had"
> to "has"

It has to say "must" otherwise there's no normative conformance criteria, and
it becomes impossible to determine if it's a statement trying to modify XPath,
or a statement trying to describe the results of other conformance criteria
(and failing).

> and also make it clear that it is the path expression, and not the
> document, that determines whether the node test is testing an element name.

Surely it's the user agent that determines whether the node test is testing an
element name?

I used "the node" because that is what XPath 1.0 section 2.3 Node Tests does
— it says "A node test that is a QName is true if and only if the type of the
node [...]" where "the node" has no referent.

Is there some other term I can use?

> Here's my best shot at this:
> [...] namespace URI http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml (the HTML namespace)

HTML5 style is to refer to the namespace as "the HTML namespace" with a
hyperlink to its definition, not to repeat the namespace wherever it occurs.

> when the node test occurs in a position where an element or type name is
> expected

This doesn't appear to use XPath 1.0 terminology. Do you mean "when the node
test's principle node type is element"? If so, isn't this redundant with saying
that the condition only applies when "the node" is an element?

> and the path expression is applied to a document that is an HTML document.

As far as I can tell, this would miss nodes that are outside of the document
but whose owner document is an HTML document. It would also fail in the case
where a node is in a different document than its owner document (e.g. as in an
XBL shadow tree), though it may be that XPath doesn't support that today

> I would also change the note, since this is no longer such a willful violation:

It's exactly as much of a willful violation as before. We haven't actually
changed the implementation requirements at all relative to the text the spec
had last week, we've just rephrased it in a different way. It's still requiring
that implementations break XPath 1.0 requirements.

Please let me know if you still think the spec's current text (quoted aboved)
is inadequate.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 22:51:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:01 UTC