- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:03:19 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4378 --- Comment #26 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- I didn't say it would be disruptive for the implementation, I said it would be disruptive for the spec. That's because we need to introduce a new component to the static context (e.g. "has-defined-focus"), define how it is initialized, define what constructs change it, and so on. It does become disruptive for the implementation as well if the implementation needs to distinguish places where it is allowed to raise a static error (e.g. within xsl:function or within XPath inline functions) from places where it isn't allowed to do so (e.g. within a named template after inlining), or if we have a different error code for absent focus within a function versus absent focus in the top-level XPath expression. Existing applications that call XPath from say Java might be testing for an XPDY0002 error code and would be affected if we change it to XPTY0004. Many test cases would be affected by a change of error code. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 5 October 2015 12:03:26 UTC