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

[Bug 29825] [FO31] (editorial) Strange underlined link of mandatory calculation in 4.2.5

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:09:45 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-29825-523-CKwOXavEBc@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

--- Comment #2 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> ---
How does it work on other places then? For instance, the following appears to
be formatted as <code>...</code>, but does not get underlined:

>From 4.5.1. fn:number
* The expression fn:number($item2/description) returns xs:double('NaN').
* Then fn:number() returns 1.5e1.

There appears to be a certain randomness, but the majority goes right for
inline code samples (when starting with a function name), and where it is just
the QName of the function, not a code sample, it is about a 6:4 chance:

* code samples, 15x wrong, 2+ fu names linked
  with: //code[(parent::*:a)][text()[matches(., '^[fma]\w+:\c+.*\w+:\w+')]]

* code samples, 169x right (no linking for 2+ fu names)
  with: //code[not(parent::*:a)][text()[matches(., '^[fma]\w+:\c+.*\w+:\w+')]]

* single function names, 406 times arguably wrong (no linking)
  with: //code[not(parent::*:a)][text()[matches(., '[fma]\w+:[\c#]+$')]]

* function names, 570 times right (with linking)
  with: //code[parent::*:a][text()[matches(., '[fma]\w+:[\c#]+$')]]

But I understand that, esp. if it is hard to fix, there are better things to do
right now.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 16 September 2016 13:10:08 UTC

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