W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > August 2006

[Bug 3540] comments on guidelines (editorial)

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:32:15 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1G7qbn-000711-1K@wiggum.w3.org>


------- 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:13 UTC