- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:16:58 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1778
Summary: [FS] editorial: 8.2.3.1.2 (Static semantics of) Kind
Tests
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Version: Last Call drafts
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Formal Semantics
AssignedTo: simeon@us.ibm.com
ReportedBy: jmdyck@ibiblio.org
QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org
8.2.3.1.2 (Static semantics of) Kind Tests
(presentation)
The sub-subheads ("Semantics") are more prominent than the subheads
("Document kind test", "Element kind test", etc.).
(leftover from last year, comment #218)
(Static semantics of) Document kind test
Sem 1 / rule 3 / premise 2
Sem 1 / rule 4 / premise 2
"not(Type1 <: DocumentType or DocumentType <: Type1)"
There's no need to introduce a metasyntactic 'or'.
not( A or B ) = not( A ) and not( B ), so replace with:
not(Type1 <: DocumentType)
not(DocumentType <: Type1)
(Note that this is what's done by the corresponding rules under
element kind test and attribute kind test.)
Sem 1 / rule 3 / premise 4
Sem 1 / rule 4 / premise 4
"Type2 <: empty"
Prepend "statEnv |-".
(Static semantics of) Element kind test
Sem 2 / rule 5
"ElementNameOrWildcard TypeSpecifier"
This is not a valid Formal Type.
Change to "element ElementName TypeSpecifier".
(leftover from last year, comment #223)
(Static semantics of) Attribute kind test
Sem 3 / rule 5
"AttribNameOrWildcard TypeReference"
This is not a valid Formal Type.
Change to "attribute AttributeName TypeReference".
(leftover from last year, comment #226)
(Static semantics of) Processing instruction, comment, and text kind tests.
(very last line of section)
"If none of the above rules apply, then the node test returns the
empty sequence and the following rule applies:
statEnv |- test node() with PrincipalNodeKind of NodeType : empty"
Presentationally, this looks like a judgment form declaration. It
would be nice if you could at least make it *look* like an
inference rule. E.g., have a single premise saying "otherwise".
(leftover from last year, comment #229)
But more importantly, consider the immediately previous rule:
there can't be a case where *this* rule would apply but *that* one
wouldn't.
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2005 03:17:01 UTC