- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:01:52 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15043 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> 2011-12-06 16:01:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > At our Oct./Nov. F2F Meeting, we adopted the following: > > DECISION: For XQuery 3.0, adopt direction 1 in Ghislain's proposal: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-query/2011Oct/0091.html > > Our draft spec does not fully reflect this proposal. > > 1) We need to better describe the feature/sub-feature relationship of Q:F and > Q:F-something. This is shown only by example in our draft spec. Here's what I see in the draft spec: <quote> Features can be organized in hierarchies. For instance, a vendor might provide a feature called gis:geography, with subfeatures like gis:geography-terrain, gis:geography-roads, gis:geography-soil. If a subfeature is required, an implementation must enable both that feature and its parent features. Within any given hierarchy, all-optional-features can be used to require or prohibit optional features. </quote> I believe what you want is an additional sentence that says feature F1 is a parent of feature F2 if the name of F2 begins with the name of F1? > 2) The rules for prohibiting/requiring *-all-optional-features need to be > better spelled out. Requiring a feature automatically requires all of its > parent features. I think this text already says that: <quote> If a subfeature is required, an implementation must enable both that feature and its parent features. </quote> > 3) While not addressed in the proposal, I believe that we should recognize that > prohibiting/requiring Q:all-optional-features should prohibit/require all > top-level features in the Q namespace. We should discuss this. > 4) Rule 2, raising an error of the same feature is both required and > prohibited, is missing. It is only partially addressed by the current > statement: > > "It is a static error [err:XQST0127] if the same feature name appears in both a > require-feature option declaration and a prohibit-feature option declaration in > a given module." > > Features can be required by requiring one of their sub-features. Good point. I will fix that. > 5) I believe that the following should be an error, but the spec is not clear > on this point: > > declare option prohibit-feature "all-extensions"; > declare option require-feature "gis:geography"; This could be addressed by adding a sentence to this: <quote> The name all-extensions corresponds to all features not defined by this specification. When it appears in a prohibit-feature declaration, an implementation must disable all such features<add>, and a static error is raised if a require-feature declaration attempts to require such a feature [err:XQSOMENUMBER]</add>. If all-extensions appears in a require-feature option declaration, a static error is raised [err:XQST0126]. </quote> -- Configure bugmail: https://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, 6 December 2011 16:01:58 UTC