W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > June 2010

[Bug 9665] [DM11] incorrect description (a minor editorial correction)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:41:38 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1ORUtG-0005AP-8Z@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9665


Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jim.melton@acm.org




--- Comment #5 from Jim Melton <jim.melton@acm.org>  2010-06-23 18:41:37 ---
Mukul, thanks for your interest in this subject.  I'd like to explain why the
situation is as it is by responding to your two points in comment #4. 

<comment>
1. Shouldn't a XPath 2.1 requirements document should exist? I think, for XPath
2.0 it's there.
</comment>

<myReply>
There is no reason for the WGs to spend scarce resources creating and
publishing a Requirements document when there are no new requirements that have
been stated or submitted.  While there were a number of explicit new
requirements submitted for XQuery 1.1 and for XSLT 2.1, there were none
submitted at all for XPath 2.1.  All changes that were made to XPath in
extending it beyond XPath 2.0 were done specifically as a result of making
changes to XQuery in its extension beyond XQuery 1.0.  That was obviously not
the case when XPath 2.0 was being developed, so a Requirements document was
justified (and created) for XPath 2.0. 
</myReply>

<comment<>
2.
<details>
If there's no plan to have an XPath 2.1 requirements document, then can't XPath
2.0 requirements document be referred here? The current text as mentioned in
this problem report, seems to convey that this paragraph is only about XQuery
1.1, which IMHO doesn't seem to give accurate information (I think, we should
mention XPath 2.x as well).

Therefore, would something like following be ok?
"The data model is based on the [Infoset] (henceforth "Infoset"), but it
requires the following new features to meet the [XPath 2.0] and [XQuery 1.1
Requirements]:"
</details>
</comment>

<myReply>
If we were to rewrite the sentence as you suggested, the implication would be
that we made changes to the Data Model spec after 1.0 specifically to meet the
XPath 2.0 requirements, which is false.  All of the XPath 2.0 requirements that
implied data model features were satisfied by the 1.0 edition of the Data Model
spec.  The only changes that were made to the Data Model spec in extending it
to become XDM 1.1 were made in response to the XQuery 1.1 requirements. 

Therefore, the only true statement that we can make is to say that new features
were added to XDM to meet XQuery 1.1 requirements.  (If we had added new XDM
features in response to XSLT 2.1 requirements, then of course we would state
that as well, but I am unaware of any XDM 1.1 new features that were added to
meet XSLT 2.1 requirements.)
</myReply>

Because there have been no requirements submitted explicitly for XPath 2.1, we
will not develop or publish an XPath 2.1 Requirements document.  And, because
all new XDM 1.1 features were added solely in response to the XQuery 1.1
requirements, we will not falsely state that those features were added in
response to XPath 2.0 requirements. 

I hope this explains how we got where we are, and that this convinces you to
mark this bug CLOSED.

-- 
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 Wednesday, 23 June 2010 18:41:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:31 UTC