W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > October 2016

[Bug 29891] New: [XP31] Prepublication check of XP31: Appendices

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2016 23:59:46 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-29891-523@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

            Bug ID: 29891
           Summary: [XP31] Prepublication check of XP31: Appendices
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Candidate Recommendation
          Hardware: PC
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XPath 3.1
          Assignee: jonathan.robie@gmail.com
          Reporter: mike@saxonica.com
        QA Contact: public-qt-comments@w3.org
  Target Milestone: ---

1. The first sentence of A.1.1 ("The following definitions will be helpful in
defining precisely this exposition.") is ghastly and can simply be deleted.
Readers can judge for themselves whether the definitions are helpful.

2. A.1.2 says "Therefore to reduce the need for lookahead, if the token
immediately following a slash can form the start of a RelativePathExpr, then
the slash must be the beginning of a PathExpr, not the entirety of it." This
implies that the rule is only needed to avoid the need for lookahead. However,
it is also needed to disambiguate expressions like "/union/*" where there are
two valid interpretations which cannot be distinguished by any amount of

3. A.1.2 says "Unprefixed function names spelled the same way as language
keywords could make the language harder to recognize.". For "harder" read
"impossible" (and for "recognize" read "parse"). Without this rule the
expression "element(foo)" would be ambiguous.

4. A.4, row 20, is I believe using "?" to mean the binary/postfix lookup
operator. The unary lookup operator has highest precedence of all and should
perhaps be in a new row 21.

5. In B.2 para 1, the sentence "In some cases, the operator function does not
implement the full semantics of a given operator." is misleading. I think it
should say "The operator function fully defines the semantics of a given
operator for the case where the operands are single atomic values of the types
given in the table".

6. In the operator mapping table, the entries where xs:anyURI is one of the
types are redundant, since the entry for xs:string suffices (and fortunately is
always the same) - the rules say that the anyURI can be promoted to xs:string
to find the applicable entry in the table.

7. E.1 Inconsistent use of space within entries like "RFC 2119" or "RFC3986".

8. XQuery 3.0 is listed in the non-normative references, but the document does
not refer to XQuery 3.0.

9. Ditto for Document Object Model.

10. Ditto for XPath 2.0

11. There is a non-normative reference to XPath 3.1. It is not usual for a
specification to refer non-normatively to itself.

12. It is not clear what purpose the references in E.3 (Background material)

13. In Appendix F, error XQST0052, it's not clear what construct this refers
to. Change to "The type *named in a cast or castable expression* must be...

14. The description of error XQST0070 includes conditions that cannot arise in

15. Error XPST0080, missing comma after NOTATION.

16. The description of XPDY0130 is the only place it suggests that limits are
implementation-defined. If a conformant implementation is required to document
its limits, this is not the right place to say so.

17. Error XPST0133 is an orphan.

18. Appendix G: the glossary should be sorted using a caseblind collation.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 3 October 2016 23:59:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:58:02 UTC