- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:16:08 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6027 Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com> 2008-11-03 21:16:08 --- The specification is not completely silent on this matter if you look at the text of error XPST0003: <quote> err:XPST0003 It is a static error if an expression is not a valid instance of the grammar defined in A.1 EBNF. </quote> This is the error that is raised in case of a parse error: <quote> A parse error is raised as a static error [err:XPST0003]. </quote> I think the right way forward is probably along these lines: 1. The XQuery specification governs only what we define. Any extensions to the BNF are not part of the XQuery language. 2. Users can easily determine whether a query uses grammar not found in our EBNF by using the XQuery applets. Thus, there is no need to ask vendors to provide such a facility. 3. As a Working Group, we control the XQuery BNF. If a vendor extends the BNF in their product, that has no bearing on extensions we make in the future, even if they are incompatible with vendor extensions. I will make a more formal proposal along these lines unless someone convinces me to take a different approach. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 3 November 2008 21:16:17 UTC