- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:30:42 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=30051
Bug ID: 30051
Summary: "DirElemConstrutor" erroneously displayed in XPath 3.1
Proposed Rec 17.01.2017?
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Version: Proposed Recommendation
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: XPath 3.1
Assignee: jonathan.robie@gmail.com
Reporter: todd.ditchendorf@gmail.com
QA Contact: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Target Milestone: ---
In section "3.11.3 The Lookup Operator ("?") for Maps and Arrays"
(https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/PR-xpath-31-20170117/#id-lookup), there is a list
of "Examples" explaining use of the Lookup Operator which includes the
following item:
> • If the context item is an array, let $x:= <node i="3"/> return ?($x/@i) does not raise a type error because the attribute is untyped. But let $x:= <node i="3"/> return ?($x/@i+1) does raise a type error because the + operator with an untyped operand returns a double.
This example contains two "Direct Element Constructors" or "DirElemConstrutor"s
that seem to come from the XQuery specification
(https://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-31/#doc-xquery31-DirElemConstructor).
Since XPath 3.1 does not contain DirElemConstrutors (but XQuery 3.1 does), is
this example really meant to appear in the XPath 3.1 Rec?
BACKGROUND
========
I came upon this apparent issue as I was browsing the XPath 3.1 Proposed Rec to
learn about the new JSON support in XPath. I saw the above example, and
momentarily thought that "Direct Element Constructors" had been added to XPath
as well. That surprised and confused me for a while, until I dug thru the XPath
3.1 EBNF and couldn't find any trace of DirElemConstrutors there.
So then I went to the XQuery 3.1 EBNF to compare, and *did* find
DirElemConstrutors there.
Anyhow, maybe I'm being overly picky, but I feel like the above-cited example
should perhaps not appear in the XPath 3.1 Rec, since DirElemConstrutors are
not allowed in XPath. I found it confusing, and suspect others might too.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2017 16:30:49 UTC