- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:40:13 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28915 Bug ID: 28915 Summary: XQuery inconsistent about constructor functions for list types Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT Version: Working drafts Hardware: PC OS: Windows NT Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: XQuery 3.1 Assignee: jonathan.robie@gmail.com Reporter: pwalmsley@datypic.com QA Contact: public-qt-comments@w3.org F&O says "For every user-defined simple type in the static context (See Section 2.1.1 Static Context XP31), there is a constructor function" and goes on to explain that this includes list and union types. But the XQuery spec, in multiple places, seems to deliberately exclude list types when talking about constructor functions. For example: Section 3.1.1 "Values of other atomic types can be constructed by calling the constructor function for the given type" (Note "atomic" instead of "simple") Section 3.1.1 "Constructor functions are available for all Generalized atomic types," (where the definition of generalized atomic types specifically excludes list types) Section 3.17.5 "For every generalized atomic type in the in-scope schema types (except xs:NOTATION and xs:anyAtomicType, which are not instantiable), a constructor function is implicitly defined." (Again refers to generalized atomic types) In the glossary, "The constructor function for a given type is used to convert instances of other atomic types into the given type." (Use of "atomic") However, elsewhere, e.g. Section 4.11, it says there is a constructor function for every named user-defined simple type, so that's consistent with F&O. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 6 July 2015 17:40:16 UTC