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 1619 - what is the default type of a document?
Summary: what is the default type of a document?
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Formal Semantics 1.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Last Call drafts
Hardware: PC Windows 2000
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jerome Simeon
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-07-15 01:09 UTC by Fred Zemke
Modified: 2005-09-06 13:03 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Fred Zemke 2005-07-15 01:09:36 UTC
2.4.2 Item Types
The second paragraph before Note says "a document
type has an optional content type.  If no content is given, then
it refers to the wildcard type describing any document."
I have not found any rules that specify what type is to be 
implicit when the type is missing.  The normalization rule
in 3.5.4 "SequenceType matching" says that 
[document-node()]SequenceType == document, so that is no help.
In 8.2.2.1
"Static judgment for axes", there is a rule for the type analysis
of the child:: axis of a "document { Type }", but that assumes that
you already have the default Type, which the normalization rule
did not actually specify. The rules of 8.1 "Judgments for
accessing types" only talk about element types, not document nodes.
So how is the default type of document supplied?
Comment 1 Jerome Simeon 2005-07-21 00:10:17 UTC
The default type for document without a type content is actually given in
Section 2.4.2:

<<
A document type has an optional content type. If no content type is given, then
the type is treated as being the wildcard type for documents, i.e., a sequence
of text and element nodes.
>>

- Jerome
Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2005-07-22 17:08:55 UTC
The XML Query and XSL Working Groups discussed this issue during
our meeting this morning.  Having confirmed that the text of
Section 2.4.2 is as described in Jerome Simeon's Comment #1, the
Working Groups concluded that the correct thing to do is to treat
this issue as a request for clarification and close it with no
further action.  Accordingly, I'm changing the status of this issue
to WORKSFORME.

Please let us know if you are satisfied with this resolution of 
your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing 
the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with 
this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you 
wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change 
the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your 
dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, 
then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear 
from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with 
the WG decision.