W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > September 2005

[Bug 2289] [xqueryx] base uri (and other aspects of the initial context)

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 11:14:49 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1EKwNF-00034a-Ig@wiggum.w3.org>


------- Additional Comments From davidc@nag.co.uk  2005-09-29 11:14 -------
  The Working Group discussed this comment at length.  Once we understood the
  relationships between the XML syntax and the human-readable syntax for XQuery,
  we recalled that it has always been our intent for the two syntaxes to have
  equivalent semantics. 

If it takes the WG considerable time to remind themselves of this conclusion,
how is anyone else supposed to _ever_ come to this conclusion?

What is the objection to adding this paragraph

> one important consequence of this is that the XQuery
> static context to which you refer is exactly the same static context that an
> XQueryX engine would use.  

to the xqueryx spec?

My current XqueryX evaluator works by 
a) running the stylesheet from the spec, writing the Xquery to a temporary file
b) executing the Xquery in an Xquery engine.

This works most of the time (including I think all of the current test suite)
but fails on (the xqueryx equivalent of) the Query


which the above paragraph makes clear should return the URI of the XQueryX
document, but my system currently returns the URI of the temporary file.

This is an essentially editorial matter, just requesting that the WG's intention
is stated in the document, as it is certainly not at all easy to come to that
conclusion currently. 

Received on Thursday, 29 September 2005 11:14:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:09 UTC