- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:52:42 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1382 scott_boag@us.ibm.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|chamberl@almaden.ibm.com |scott_boag@us.ibm.com Severity|normal |minor ------- Additional Comments From scott_boag@us.ibm.com 2005-05-17 15:52 ------- > Even when the only possible derivation says it's not an occurrence > indicator? So in > 4 treat as item() + 5 > the '+' is assumed to be an occurrence indicator, which would then lead to a > syntax error? Probably yes, but might be good to say so. Yes, and it does say so. But it could be clarified, along with an example.
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2005 15:57:28 UTC