[Bug 10048] New: Annotation assertions should play well with annotations

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10048

           Summary: Annotation assertions should play well with
                    annotations
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Member-only Editors Drafts
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XQuery 1.1
        AssignedTo: jonathan.robie@redhat.com
        ReportedBy: jonathan.robie@redhat.com
         QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org


Despite the name, annotation assertions have no direct relationship to
annotations. They are not a general way to test assertions about annotations.

In particular:

* Making an annotation doesn't mean you can test it with an annotation
assertion. Since an annotation consists of a name and a value, one might expect
that an annotation assertion uses name/value matching for matching, but this is
not true.

* You can make annotation assertions without annotations, they can depend on
anything, such as the time of day or the phase of the moon. Even an annotation
assertion with the same name as an annotation is not required to test the
annotation in any way.

* There are not annotation assertions for all XQuery annotations - for
instance, there are no annotation assertions for %public or %private

* If there is an annotation assertion that is semantically related to an
annotation, there is no rule that tells you that, you have to see where someone
has documented that particular annotation assertion. 

* The semantics of the %nondeterministic annotation assertion are surprising,
because it matches functions declared with the %deterministic annotation. They
are also redundant - % nondeterministic means "either deterministic or
non-deterministic", and every function must be one or the other, so this test
matches any function item.

-- 
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 Tuesday, 29 June 2010 17:04:56 UTC