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 9665 - [DM11] incorrect description (a minor editorial correction)
Summary: [DM11] incorrect description (a minor editorial correction)
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Data Model 3.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Working drafts
Hardware: All All
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Norman Walsh
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel-11/
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-05-06 10:35 UTC by Mukul Gandhi
Modified: 2010-06-23 23:40 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Mukul Gandhi 2010-05-06 10:35:56 UTC
In section "1 Introduction" of WD specification, "XQuery and XPath Data Model 1.1" (dated, 15 December 2009),

it's mentioned:
The data model is based on the [Infoset] (henceforth "Infoset"), but it requires the following new features to meet the [XQuery 1.1 Requirements]:

I think, it should be something like:
The data model is based on the [Infoset] (henceforth "Infoset"), but it requires the following new features to meet the [XPath 2.1] and [XQuery 1.1 Requirements]:

ps: the word, XPath 2.1 is missing. The earlier spec, http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/ could be referred for the correct text.

Regards,
Mukul
Comment 1 Norman Walsh 2010-05-11 15:04:48 UTC
I'll make the suggested editorial change.
Comment 2 Norman Walsh 2010-06-22 18:46:06 UTC
Actually, there is no explicit XPath 2.1 Requirements document that I can reference, so on further inspection, I don't believe there's any change to make here.
Comment 3 Norman Walsh 2010-06-22 18:56:43 UTC
Let me know if you feel any additional clarification is necessary.
Comment 4 Mukul Gandhi 2010-06-23 06:03:23 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Actually, there is no explicit XPath 2.1 Requirements document that I can
> reference, so on further inspection, I don't believe there's any change to make
> here.

I've following concerns:

1. Shouldn't a XPath 2.1 requirements document should exist? I think, for XPath 2.0 it's there.

2.
<details>
If there's no plan to have an XPath 2.1 requirements document, then can't XPath 2.0 requirements document be referred here? The current text as mentioned in this problem report, seems to convey that this paragraph is only about XQuery 1.1, which IMHO doesn't seem to give accurate information (I think, we should mention XPath 2.x as well).

Therefore, would something like following be ok?
"The data model is based on the [Infoset] (henceforth "Infoset"), but it
requires the following new features to meet the [XPath 2.0] and [XQuery 1.1
Requirements]:"
</details>

Regards,
Mukul
Comment 5 Jim Melton 2010-06-23 18:41:37 UTC
Mukul, thanks for your interest in this subject.  I'd like to explain why the situation is as it is by responding to your two points in comment #4. 

<comment>
1. Shouldn't a XPath 2.1 requirements document should exist? I think, for XPath
2.0 it's there.
</comment>

<myReply>
There is no reason for the WGs to spend scarce resources creating and publishing a Requirements document when there are no new requirements that have been stated or submitted.  While there were a number of explicit new requirements submitted for XQuery 1.1 and for XSLT 2.1, there were none submitted at all for XPath 2.1.  All changes that were made to XPath in extending it beyond XPath 2.0 were done specifically as a result of making changes to XQuery in its extension beyond XQuery 1.0.  That was obviously not the case when XPath 2.0 was being developed, so a Requirements document was justified (and created) for XPath 2.0. 
</myReply>

<comment<>
2.
<details>
If there's no plan to have an XPath 2.1 requirements document, then can't XPath
2.0 requirements document be referred here? The current text as mentioned in
this problem report, seems to convey that this paragraph is only about XQuery
1.1, which IMHO doesn't seem to give accurate information (I think, we should
mention XPath 2.x as well).

Therefore, would something like following be ok?
"The data model is based on the [Infoset] (henceforth "Infoset"), but it
requires the following new features to meet the [XPath 2.0] and [XQuery 1.1
Requirements]:"
</details>
</comment>

<myReply>
If we were to rewrite the sentence as you suggested, the implication would be that we made changes to the Data Model spec after 1.0 specifically to meet the XPath 2.0 requirements, which is false.  All of the XPath 2.0 requirements that implied data model features were satisfied by the 1.0 edition of the Data Model spec.  The only changes that were made to the Data Model spec in extending it to become XDM 1.1 were made in response to the XQuery 1.1 requirements. 

Therefore, the only true statement that we can make is to say that new features were added to XDM to meet XQuery 1.1 requirements.  (If we had added new XDM features in response to XSLT 2.1 requirements, then of course we would state that as well, but I am unaware of any XDM 1.1 new features that were added to meet XSLT 2.1 requirements.)
</myReply>

Because there have been no requirements submitted explicitly for XPath 2.1, we will not develop or publish an XPath 2.1 Requirements document.  And, because all new XDM 1.1 features were added solely in response to the XQuery 1.1 requirements, we will not falsely state that those features were added in response to XPath 2.0 requirements. 

I hope this explains how we got where we are, and that this convinces you to mark this bug CLOSED.
Comment 6 Mukul Gandhi 2010-06-23 23:40:03 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
Thanks, Jim for the explanation. I'm closing this bug report.