W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > November 2008

[Bug 6027] [XQuery] Extensions and Conformance

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:16:08 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Kx6mO-0007wO-MH@farnsworth.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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:25 UTC