This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 11986 - [XQuery] XQST0022 description inconsistent
Summary: [XQuery] XQST0022 description inconsistent
Status: REOPENED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XQuery 1.0 (show other bugs)
Version: 2nd Edition Recommendation
Hardware: All All
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jonathan Robie
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 13964 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-02-05 08:16 UTC by Michael Dyck
Modified: 2015-10-06 09:48 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Michael Dyck 2011-02-05 08:16:59 UTC 
3.7.1.2 Namespace Declaration Attributes
says
    "If the DirAttributeValue contains an EnclosedExpr,
    a static error is raised [err:XQST0022]."
which is fine, but Appendix F says:
    "err:XQST0022: It is a static error if the value of a
    namespace declaration attribute is not a URILiteral."
which is not the same thing.

(Same problem in XQuery 3.0)
Comment 1 Jonathan Robie 2011-04-25 20:42:08 UTC 
In XQuery 3.0, this is resolved in errors.xml, revision 1.42.
Comment 2 Michael Dyck 2011-08-29 21:14:43 UTC 
*** Bug 13964 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Michael Dyck 2011-08-29 21:32:07 UTC 
I don't think this bug should have been marked resolved-fixed.

The corresponding problem in XQuery 3.0 has indeed been resolved, but this bug
was raised against XQuery 1.0 second edition, where the problem has not been
resolved.

In the WG mailing list, the last mention of this bug was in the agenda for
meeting #474 (2011-05-10), with a status of:
   "Pending; possible erratum against Second Edition"
The minutes of that meeting don't indicate any discussion (much less
resolution) of the bug.
Comment 4 Jim Melton 2011-09-19 21:33:46 UTC 
Michael, as with bug 11609, I think that I recall Jonathan telling us that this was on his To Do list and that we agreed to take it off the agenda for that reason. 

Perhaps you could suggest how you want the WG to handle bugs for which the decision has been made, but the work not yet actually done?  Simply leaving the bugs open like other bugs that have not yet been discussed or decided makes creation of agendas very difficult for me.
Comment 5 Michael Kay 2015-10-06 09:06:29 UTC 
Revert apparent vandalism (status change).
Comment 6 Jonathan Robie 2015-10-06 09:21:12 UTC 
(In reply to Michael Kay from comment #5)
> Revert apparent vandalism (status change).

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying.
Comment 7 Michael Kay 2015-10-06 09:48:18 UTC 
If you examine the history you'll see that a user dakajo3711@yahoo.com.au recently made a strange and unauthorised change to the status of this (and some other) bugs. I was reverting the change to repair the damage.