- From: Jonathan Robie <jwrobie@mindspring.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:43:21 -0500
- To: Lisa Martin <lmartin@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org, W3C XML Schema WG <w3c-xml-schema-wg@w3.org>
Lisa Martin wrote: >Dear Colleagues, > >This comment pertains to the Nov. 12 2003 version of XPath 2.0 [1]. > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/ > >Lisa Martin, on behalf of the XML Schema Working Group >---------------------------------------------------- > >Section 2.4.4.3 Matching an ElementTest and an Element Node > Bullet 2 states: > > 2. element(ElementName, TypeName) matches a given element node if: > a. ... , and: > b. type-matches(TypeName, AT) is true, where AT is the type > of > the given element node. ... > > The first example is: > Example: element(person, surgeon) matches an non-nilled element > node > whose name is person and whose type annotation is surgeon. > > Given the rules for type-matches (ET, AT), shouldn't the example instead >say " ... and whose type annotation is surgeon, or is a type derived > from surgeon"? This comment applies to many examples in this, and >following sections. > > Hi Lisa, The simple answer is "yes", so I intend to classify this as editorial rather than substantive. Jonathan
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 17:45:56 UTC