This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Currently xqx:functionName allows any Qname which means that several XqueryX documents using this element translate to node tests such as node() or element() that use a function-like syntax but are not functions. It would be good if the schema declaration could use a facet to stop the node test keywords being used as function names, unfortunately XSD can't do this (unlike, say, Relax NG) as it can not restrict the content of the element based on the non-appearance of the xqx:prefix attribute. However the stylesheet could easily be modified to generate an error in these cases. David
Thanks for your comment. This is, I believe, a matter of philosophy. Should the XQueryX spec (including schema and stylesheet) be designed to prevent the use of XQueryX constructs that translate into invalid, useless, or merely ignorant XQuery syntax? Well, we've tried to accomplish some minimal level of that kind of prevention, but have (so far) taken the approach that any XQueryX document that transforms into invalid XQuery (syntactically or semantically) has undefined semantics. Nonetheless, we will take a closer look at this philosophical direction and see what changes might be appropriate.
> but have (so far) taken the approach that any XQueryX > document that transforms into invalid XQuery (syntactically or semantically) > has undefined semantics. I agree with that approach, but that is not the problem that is addressed here. The problem here is that <xqx:functionName>element</ _should_ translate to an invalid xquery (or an error raised by the translator) but that currently it has _defined_ semantics as it translates to a perfectly valid XQuery expression but as a node test and not as a function. David
We have accepted your comment and proposed solution, and have made the appropriate changes to the XQueryX stylesheet. Please let us know if you agree 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.
thanks