- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 23:45:54 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21568
Sorin Nasoi <spungi@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
CC| |spungi@gmail.com
Resolution|FIXED |---
--- Comment #8 from Sorin Nasoi <spungi@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> See also bugs 8713 and 20902.
>
> Noted during discussion today that the resolution of bug 20902 represents an
> official interpretation of the XQuery 1.0 specification, to the effect that
> the prohibition of reserved function names applies only to their use in
> function calls, and not to their use in function declarations.
>
> In other words, the WG decided that these test results for XQuery 1.0 are
> correct.
>
> (Personal comment: Since XQuery 3.0 introduces an incompatible change,
> however, it would be understandable if a vendor decides to implement the 3.0
> rules in a 1.0 processor...)
I have a question related to this comment:
since the test-cases in question are marked with a dependency to "XQ10" is it
correct for a XQuery implementattion submitting results for XQuery 3.0 not to
run these test-cases?
Meaning that the results for these test-cases *don't* count for XQuery 3.0
conformance ?
My understanding is that for submitting results for XQuery 3.0 only test-cases
marked with "XQ10+", "XQ30" and "XQ30+" should matter.
Am I missing something here?
Doesn't "XQ10" dependency stand for XQuery 1.0 test-cases that *may be*
incompatible with XQuery 3.0 ?
Because this is not the case since the test-cases mentioned (although marked
with "XQ10" dependency) are taken into account when generating XQuery 3.0
conformance reports.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 23:45:55 UTC