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 4730 - [FT] editorial: 5.2.14 Scoring
Summary: [FT] editorial: 5.2.14 Scoring
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Full Text 1.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Last Call drafts
Hardware: All All
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Rys
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-06-23 10:15 UTC by Michael Dyck
Modified: 2007-10-11 22:29 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Dyck 2007-06-23 10:15:34 UTC
5.2.14 Scoring

[1]
"a combination of FTContainsExpr"
    s/FTContainsExpr/FTContainsExprs/

[2]
"formed with the XQuery Boolean operators 'and' and 'or'"
    What about "not" ?

[3]
why
    In the case of ForClause and SimpleForClause, the scoring restriction
    doesn't make much sense: if the ExprSingle satisfies the restriction,
    it can only return a boolean, and what's the point of iterating over a
    singleton boolean?
    Note that none of the ForClauses or SimpleForClauses in this spec's
    examples satisfy this restriction. Ditto in the Use Cases.
Comment 1 Michael Rys 2007-10-11 22:28:32 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> 5.2.14 Scoring
> [1]
> "a combination of FTContainsExpr"
>     s/FTContainsExpr/FTContainsExprs/

this becomes mood with change for [3].

> [2]
> "formed with the XQuery Boolean operators 'and' and 'or'"
>     What about "not" ?

This becomes mood based on change for [3]. Also note that the set of supported expressions is implementation-defined according to 3.2.

> [3]
> why
>     In the case of ForClause and SimpleForClause, the scoring restriction
>     doesn't make much sense: if the ExprSingle satisfies the restriction,
>     it can only return a boolean, and what's the point of iterating over a
>     singleton boolean?
>     Note that none of the ForClauses or SimpleForClauses in this spec's
>     examples satisfy this restriction. Ditto in the Use Cases.

Section 3.2 says that set of supported expression is implementation-defined.

The section will be reworded. The first paragraph will say that implementations can restrict allowable expressions and they are implementation-defined.

The second paragraph gets removed and the third one gets a slight editorial adjustment.

Since you were present when we discussed the changes I am resolving and closing the bug.