[Bug 28024] Does "[Unicode] characters" EQUAL "Char production in [XML]?


Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |jmdyck@ibiblio.org

--- Comment #1 from Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> ---
(In reply to Patrick Durusau from comment #0)
> One of the problems caused by not referencing definitions rather than
> repeating them is the creation of conflicting definitions. For example:
> XDM 3.1 reads at 2.7.3 XML and XSD Versions:
> [Definition: A string is a value in the value space of the xs:string data
> type; equivalently, it is a sequence of characters.]
> [Definition: A character is an instance of the Char production in [XML]. It
> is recommended that the implementation use the latest definition, currently
> XML 1.1 Second Edition.]
> And yet, XPath 3.1 reads at 2 Basics:
> The basic building block of XPath 3.1 is the expression, which is a string
> of [Unicode] characters; the version of Unicode to be used is
> implementation-defined.

The latter is not a definition of "string", since there is no "[Definition: ]"
markup, and the word "string" isn't even bolded, so this certainly isn't a case
of "conflicting definitions".

Moreover, it isn't a case of a non-definition disagreeing with a definition,
because they're not talking about the same thing. The definition in XDM is
talking about values in an abstract value space, whereas the statement in
Basics is talking about (concrete) program texts.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Saturday, 14 February 2015 06:11:02 UTC