[Bug 29170] [XQ31] Function and Variable Annotations


--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Michael Kay from comment #2)

I modified it so that the term "create" is never used for annotations. An
implementation can provide a way for users to define annotations.

Defining an annotation is always an outside-the-spec mechanism, it is never
simply using an existing annotation in a query. Ditto for defining an

> (II) For function assertions (, we read:
> If a function assertion is not recognized by an implementation, it is
> ignored, and has no effect on the semantics of the function test.
> while for annotations (4.15) we read:
> If the namespace URI of an annotation's expanded QName is not recognized by
> the implementation, then the annotation is ignored.
> Is the distinction deliberate? What happens in the latter case when the URI
> is recognized but the local name is not? And is the behaviour in this case
> different if the URI is reserved (i.e., does this constitute "creating an
> annotation")?
> (These points seem to be more than purely editorial so I am raising the
> priority).

In the telcon, we decided that an implementation ignores an annotation or
assertion when the URI is not recognized, just as we do for pragmas.

You can see changes made for this bug by looking for "bug29170" in the XML.

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

Received on Saturday, 10 October 2015 01:22:07 UTC