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

[Bug 3650] Error code on element(*, test:unknownType) is ambiguous -- XPST0001/XPTY0004?

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 20:55:49 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1GRxUT-0005C3-FS@wiggum.w3.org>


frans.englich@telia.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
           Keywords|editorial                   |
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |
            Summary|Editorial: error code on    |Error code on element(*,
                   |element(*, test:unknownType)|test:unknownType) is
                   |is ambiguous --             |ambiguous --
                   |XPST0001/XPTY0004?          |XPST0001/XPTY0004?

------- Comment #2 from frans.englich@telia.com  2006-09-25 20:55 -------
Here's a specific proposal. All references to sections are to XML Path Language
(XPath) 2.0, but I believe they apply to the corresponding sections in XQuery
1.0 as well.

In Element Test add to the end of both bullet point 5 and 6:

"If the TypeName is not found in the in-scope schema types, a static error is
raised [XPSTNewCode]."

Add the same sentence to the end of bullet point 3 and 4 in Attribute

In G Error Conditions add:

        It is a static error if the TypeName in an ElementTest or AttributeTest
is not found in the in-scope schema types.

Link the terms TypeName, ElementTest, AttributeTest, "in-scope schema types"
and "static error" to the targets as currently done.

In bug #3576, comment #3, Jerome writes "checking whether the type
'test:unkonwnType' is in the context, should occur before type matching is
applied. A corrolary of that is that I think bullet '1 ET is an unknown type'
should actually never be used." If the WGs are supportive of Jerome's implied
change, I am too. If the WGs has no opinion, I suggest to leave 2.5.4 as is,
because I don't think I can understand the implications of such a change.

Regarding what "XPSTNewCode" should be, I suggest XPST0018 if the WGs has no
opinion(I have no idea of the implications of that choice, I simply picked the
next in line).
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 20:55:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:15 UTC