- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 10:46:07 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3312 frans.englich@telia.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | ------- Comment #2 from frans.englich@telia.com 2006-08-04 10:46 ------- I don't think sufficient changes has been done, so I reopen. Apart from that invalid casting combinations are discussed in 3.12.3 Cast and 3.12.4 Castable, it is also mentioned in 17.1 Casting from primitive types to primitive types: <quote> [XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition] defines xs:NOTATION as an abstract type. Thus, casting to xs:NOTATION from any other type including xs:NOTATION is not permitted. However, casting from one subtype of xs:NOTATION to another subtype of xs:NOTATION is permitted. Casting is not supported to or from xs:anySimpleType. Thus, there is no row or column for this type in the table below. For any node that has not been validated or has been validated as xs:anySimpleType, the typed value of the node is an atomic value of type xs:untypedAtomic. There are no atomic values with the type annotation xs:anySimpleType at runtime. Similarly, casting is not supported to or from xs:anyAtomicType. There are no atomic values with the type annotation xs:anyAtomicType at runtime, although this can be a statically inferred type. An attempt to cast to any of the above three type raises a static error [err:XPST0080]XP </quote> That is, as I see it F&O specifies a behavior that contradicts what was implemented in this report. I guess the actual problem is that the XQuery and F&O specs duplicate each other. I think the proper solution is to fix that. However, the easiest and least intrusive way, is probably to remove the last paragraph, "An attempt to cast to any of the above three type raises a static error", and add [errorcode] markups inline in accordance with how 3.12.3 Cast and 3.12.4 Castable was edited. This was brought to my attention by Ying Lu in private mail. Also, I don't think the changes proposed in the original comment is implemented in the internally publicized drafts, but I presume that's expected. Frans
Received on Friday, 4 August 2006 10:46:36 UTC