- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:23:56 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7072 --- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2009-08-27 21:23:56 --- ACTION A-405-01 For fn:doc(), FODC0002 is really a bit of a fudge. The theory is that the dynamic context defines a mapping from URIs to nodes; in that pure theory there are no dereferencing or parsing operations, and therefore no scope for FODC0002 to occur. The existence of the error code reflects the pragmatic reality that we all know fn:doc() will in actually do dereferencing and parsing, and these operations may fail. The bug report is asking for similar pragmatism for fn:collection(), which seems reasonable. In action A-405-01 I was asked to produce wording to implement this, and I think the most sensible thing to do is to use similar wording to that of the fn:doc() function: <proposedText> One possible processing model for this function is as follows. The collection URI is dereferenced to yield a resource that provides a set of document URIs. If this dereferencing operation fails, an error is raised [err:FODC0002]. The set of document URIs is then mapped to a set of document nodes by applying the fn:doc function. If this operation fails for any reason in respect of any URI, the error code raised by the fn:doc function is propagated as an error result from the fn:collection function. For example, a parsing or schema validation error in any of the documents would result in error FODC0002 being raised. </proposedText> The astute reader will notice that this anticipates the model assumed by the proposed uri-collection() function. However, it's careful not to rule out other processing models. -- 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 Thursday, 27 August 2009 21:24:06 UTC