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 3878 - [FS] editorial: 3.3 Error Handling
Summary: [FS] editorial: 3.3 Error Handling
Status: ASSIGNED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Formal Semantics 1.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Candidate Recommendation
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: 2006-10-29 01:36 UTC by Michael Dyck
Modified: 2007-11-04 06:00 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Dyck 2006-10-29 01:36:56 UTC
3.3 Error Handling

"The [Functions and Operators] [XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language], and
[XML Path Language (XPath) 2.0] specify the conditions under which an
expression or operator raises an error."

    Insert "documents" before or after the list of documents.

    Insert comma after "Operators]".

    Insert "normatively" before "specify".
    (It's reasonable to expect that "static semantics" includes static
    errors, and thus that the normative static semantics in the FS would
    include normative specification of the conditions for static errors.
    Since it doesn't, I think it's important for the FS to say where the
    normative specification for errors is instead.)

"Instead, this document describe the rules necessary to statically detect
the subset of the [XPath/XQuery] dynamic errors known as type error^XQ."

    s/describe/describes/

    The XQuery document doesn't appear to agree that type errors are a
    subset of dynamic errors. So maybe change to:
        "However, this document does describe the rules necessary to
        statically detect type errors^XQ."

    Except that that doesn't appear to be true. The FS occasionally
    mentions when a type error would be raised, but it doesn't describe
    rules to detect it, other than in the one case in 4 / STA.
Comment 1 Jim Melton 2007-02-26 00:19:27 UTC
The fix for this bug does not appear in the Recommendation of 23 January 2007. 
It will be considered for a future publication (either an Errata document or
some possible future version of the specification).