- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 20:34:46 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4551 ------- Comment #2 from mike@saxonica.com 2007-05-30 20:34 ------- I'm puzzled by your reasoning, Andrew. The paragraph you quote says that "it is required to establish that the actual value of the operand E does not violate any constraints on its cardinality". But Tim asserts (and no doubt he is right) that this has already been done during static analysis, which determined the cardinality of ("a string", error()) to be (1,1). This seems like an absurd and undesirable result, but it's hard to argue with the logic that the spec allows it. Or perhaps it's not so absurd after all: the only reason we have the rule that you can't do early-exit until you've established the cardinality is to outlaw the XPath 1.0 "use first item, ignore rest of sequence" semantics, because we think that's error-prone. Here, if you carried on evaluating the sequence, you would not get a cardinality error but whatever error is thrown by error(), so it doesn't fall into this category and shouldn't be caught by this rule.
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 20:34:48 UTC