- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:35:26 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29983 --- Comment #10 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> --- > Re comment#9: We used to have the term *equivalent expression* but decided to drop it because we couldn't define it specifically enough. I believe the problem was that we define clearly to go from a pattern to an expression, but the inverse is not so simple and would lead to processor-dependent behavior on what expression also is a motionless pattern (I think it was in the discussion of bug 25160). So, if there are no differences, that is good, then the definition is as it should be. But I'm uncertain we should go back to a situation we dismissed previously as too vague. That said, if we can convince ourselves it is not vague and that for all E (expression) in EE (all RelativePath expressions) we can define unambiguously whether it can be rewritten as a motionless pattern or not, it would be a good way forward into simplifying this. But I have a strong feeling that precisely that discussion led to the introduction of scanning expressions in the first place. Note that, with the present rules, an expression like //foo and the pattern //foo have distinct streamability semantics, the patterns are streamable, and the expression is only streamable in rare cases (if the context type is document-node), meaning that the sets of motionless patterns and streamable RelativePath expressions is not (presently) equal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2016 23:35:38 UTC