11609 2010-12-27 01:32:04 +0000 [XQuery] error for mismatched tags 2011-09-30 19:19:24 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XQuery 1.0 2nd Edition Recommendation All All REOPENED P2 normal --- 1 jmdyck jonathan.robie jim.melton jonathan.robie public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 43558 0 jmdyck 2010-12-27 01:32:04 +0000 3.7.1 Direct Element Constructors "In a direct element constructor, the name used in the end tag must exactly match the name used in the corresponding start tag..." The spec should say what error to raise for violations of this requirement. (Note that XPST0003 doesn't apply -- it's raised "if an expression is not a valid instance of the grammar defined in A.1 EBNF", but an expression like <a></b> *is* a valid instance of the grammar in A.1.) 47342 1 jonathan.robie 2011-04-11 20:45:17 +0000 Added this error, and referenced it from the above text. err:XQST0118 In a direct element constructor, the name used in the end tag must exactly match the name used in the corresponding start tag, including its prefix or absence of a prefix. Fixed in the internal draft: errors.xml revision: 1.40; expressions.xml revision: 1.159. 56407 2 jmdyck 2011-09-06 16:55:35 +0000 (As with Bug 11986...) I don't think this bug should have been marked resolved-fixed. The corresponding problem in XQuery 3.0 has indeed been resolved, but this bug was raised against XQuery 1.0 second edition, where the problem has not been resolved. In the WG mailing list, the last mention of this bug was in the agenda for meeting #474 (2011-05-10), with a status of: "Pending; possible erratum against Second Edition" The minutes of that meeting don't indicate any discussion (much less resolution) of the bug. 57001 3 jim.melton 2011-09-19 21:24:02 +0000 Michael, if I recall correctly (not a foregone conclusion!), Jonathan told us that the change against 1.0 2ed was on his To Do list, and that we agreed to remove the bug from the agenda on that basis. Until recently, I was using the paradigm that we marked bugs RESOLVED when the decision had been made by the WGs. (As you know, I recently proposed that we use ASSIGNED for that purpose and defer RESOLVED until the editing had been done. But even that doesn't seem to be as readily accepted as I'd hoped.) Do you disagree that we made the decision to make the same/analogous change to 1.0/2.0 as against 3.0? 57576 4 jmdyck 2011-09-30 19:19:24 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > Michael, if I recall correctly (not a foregone conclusion!), Jonathan told us > that the change against 1.0 2ed was on his To Do list, and that we agreed to > remove the bug from the agenda on that basis. ... > > Do you disagree that we made the decision to make the same/analogous change to > 1.0/2.0 as against 3.0? No, it's quite possible that we made that decision and it didn't get recorded in the minutes (or here). And it's possible that Jonathan put the change on his To Do list for 1.0 2ed, but (as far as I can tell) there's no record of that either. (In particular, he didn't mention it when he marked the bug resolved-fixed.) That lack of record is mostly why I reopened the bug.