This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The W3C test parser applet allows an input expression to contain more than one query, essentially because it has an extra production [0] QueryList := Module* While converting XQuery to XQueryX using this parser I generate xqx:queryList elements for this production, allowing a single XQueryX document to encode multiple queries. This seems to be generally a useful feature, and I propose it for addition to the schema. The stylesheet in the spec could use the same separator as the parser applet when writing back as xquery (%%%). Currently I generate this element anyway, without changing the schema, the schema validator (xsv) laxly validates an undeclared top level element, and so validates each query separately, but it would be nicer to have this fully declared. David
The Working Group discussed this comment at some length. We recognize the attraction of the suggested extension to XQueryX, but finally concluded that it is undesirable to make such an extension until the human-readable XQuery syntax provides such a facility. XQueryX generators may, of course, choose to generate collections of XQueryX documents that are "wrapped" into a containing element, but we do not plan to define that element in the XQueryX specification at this time. We will certainly consider this for inclusion in some future version of XQueryX, should such a version be published. 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.
I guessed this would be the outcome, no objection really I just thought I'd raise the suggestion. closing this.