- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 09:43:34 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19597 --- Comment #22 from Christian Gruen <christian.gruen@gmail.com> --- Thanks for further discussing this. I agree with Michael that the current specification does not disallow implementations to parse prohibited statements and raise errors, as it does not say anything about the order in which statements in the Prolog need to be evaluated. >From a user’s perspective, it might be surprising that a module import statement may trigger static errors when it will later be prohibited. However, I also think that require/prohibit options should have been moved to the very top of the query prolog. It feels irritating to me that a statement can be placed in a query, and will later be prohibited. It was for some reason that the version declaration was placed before all other constructs in a query, as this makes it straightforward for both the user and the parser to see/detect what is allowed and disallowed in a query. I believe the same should have happened with the require/prohibit option: module imports and other statement will be encountered by a parser before they will later be prohibited. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 09:43:39 UTC