- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:49:52 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29193
--- Comment #4 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> ---
I don't think there's anything in the spec that says you have to have a
syntactically valid parse before you can raise a "semantic" error. For example,
as soon as I've read "x:something(" then I know this can only legitimately be
the start of a function call, so I'm allowed to check whether "x" is an
in-scope prefix before checking that what follows is a syntactically-legitimate
continuation of the function call.
The spec says "If more than one error is present, or if an error condition
comes within the scope of more than one error defined in this specification,
then any non-empty subset of these errors may be reported." We very
deliberately give implementations freedom in terms of the order of processing
when doing static analysis. Here there are (on some interpretation) two errors,
a spurious "1" between the parens of a namespace-node test, and use of a
namespace-node test in a version of the language where it isn't allowed, and
the processor is allowed to report either or both of those.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 15:49:55 UTC