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 1798 - [FS] editorial: B.2 Mapping of Overloaded Internal Functions
Summary: [FS] editorial: B.2 Mapping of Overloaded Internal Functions
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Formal Semantics 1.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Last Call drafts
Hardware: All All
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Dyck
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-07-22 00:55 UTC by Michael Dyck
Modified: 2007-11-04 06:00 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Dyck 2005-07-22 00:55:14 UTC
B.2 Mapping of Overloaded Internal Functions

DEv+STA
    It's odd to have DEv before STA.

B.2 / STA / rule (1|2|3|4|5|6) / premise 2
"statEnv |- Expr1 : Type2"
    s/Expr1/Expr2/

B.2 / STA / rule (3|4|5|6)
"statEnv |- operator type for AtomicType1 and AtomicType2 is AtomicType3"
    I don't think "statEnv |-" is needed.

Notation
"operator type for AtomicType1 and AtomicType2 is AtomicType3"
    This needs to include fs:opname!
    The result type isn't determined solely by the input types, e.g.:
        fs:plus(integer,integer) : integer, but
        fs:div( integer,integer) : double

"Gregorian refers to the types xs:gYearMonth, xs:gYear, xs:gMonthDay,
xs:gDay, and xs:gMonth. For binary operators that accept two
Gregorian-type operands, both operands must have the same type"
    The only occurrences of "Gregorian" in the table are two
    (Gregorian, Gregorian) rows. So these are standing in for 10 rows
    with explicit input types and explicit "denotes". I think you'd be
    better off being explicit. (Considering that you expanded all the
    'numeric' rows, you're clearly not going for brevity.)

("Binary Operators" table)
    In the rows for fs:gt, the input types are presented without the "xs:"
    prefix and without the <code> font.

("Unary Operators" table)
    Why does it use a smaller font than the "Binary Operators" table?
Comment 1 Jerome Simeon 2006-03-28 21:27:23 UTC
Fixed as suggested, except for the Gregorian case, left as is for consistency with the XQuery 1.0 specification.
- Jerome
Comment 2 Michael Dyck 2006-04-24 21:31:30 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Fixed as suggested, except for the Gregorian case, left as is for consistency
> with the XQuery 1.0 specification.

If you want to be consistent with the XQuery spec, why did you expand the 'numeric' rows?
Comment 3 Michael Dyck 2006-10-06 07:15:34 UTC
I'd like a response to my last comment.