- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:34:35 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6513
Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@redhat.com> 2009-03-16 14:34:35 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> See also bug #5738, which discusses similar inconsistencies of terminology in
> section 2.2.5.
>
> I think that using "known" to mean "present in the ISSD" is unfortunate, since
> the whole idea behind the rules in 2.5.4 is that the processor may have
> knowledge of types that have not been explicitly imported, and may use this
> knowledge. I suspect it is because of this difference between the defined
> meaning of "known" and its intuitive meaning that the word is not used more
> widely. So rather than using "known" more widely, I would prefer to use a more
> helpful term like "declared".
I'm confused.
If I understand this correctly, the ISSD can be augmented by the
implementation, so the ISSD contains all statically known types. There are
three components in the ISSD (http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#dt-issd), and each
of these can be augmented according to Appendix C
(http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/#id-xq-static-context-components).
I think the terms "statically known" and "statically unknown" would be more
precise than "known" and "unknown". I think the term "declared" would be
misleading, because this includes statically known types that are known to the
implementation but not explicitly declared.
So I think the clearest change would be to use "statically known" and
"statically unknown", and to use these terms consistently as suggested on
comment #1.
Jonathan
--
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, 16 March 2009 14:45:17 UTC