- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:32:15 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3540 ------- Comment #2 from davidc@nag.co.uk 2006-08-01 09:32 ------- > <xqx:external/> yes, so it's schema valid:-) > You are doing this correctly. Ah OK thanks for the confirmation. I hadn't noticed that previously. Actually each time I've released a new version of my test results I've always tried to take care to flag this as something I'm _not_ doing correctly. So I can stop doing that now. I will however keep my current practice of commenting the tests where I get "incorrect" codes. The development version of xq2xsl is actually a lot better at getting the codes right but there are still a couple of thousand or so cases where I get the wrong code (usually because the W3C XQuery parser doesn't distinguish errors with codes, or because I can't trap underlying XSLT errors, so XSLT rather than XQuery codes are reported). Probably other implementors will have similar issues with codes so I agree classing "wrong error code" as "fail" would be a bit severe. However it may be worth having a different classification other than pass such as "pass-up-to-error-code" (probably with a shorter name) so that you can more easily see which systems are using the W3C specified error codes and which are not, even if you treat pass and pass-up-to-error-code as equivalent for the purpose of the CR implementability testing.
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2006 09:32:22 UTC