11986 2011-02-05 08:16:59 +0000 [XQuery] XQST0022 description inconsistent 2015-10-06 09:48:18 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XQuery 1.0 2nd Edition Recommendation All All REOPENED P2 minor --- 1 jmdyck jonathan.robie jim.melton jonathan.robie mike public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 45142 0 jmdyck 2011-02-05 08:16:59 +0000 3.7.1.2 Namespace Declaration Attributes says "If the DirAttributeValue contains an EnclosedExpr, a static error is raised [err:XQST0022]." which is fine, but Appendix F says: "err:XQST0022: It is a static error if the value of a namespace declaration attribute is not a URILiteral." which is not the same thing. (Same problem in XQuery 3.0) 47669 1 jonathan.robie 2011-04-25 20:42:08 +0000 In XQuery 3.0, this is resolved in errors.xml, revision 1.42. 56011 2 jmdyck 2011-08-29 21:14:43 +0000 *** Bug 13964 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 56012 3 jmdyck 2011-08-29 21:32:07 +0000 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. 57003 4 jim.melton 2011-09-19 21:33:46 +0000 Michael, as with bug 11609, I think that I recall Jonathan telling us that this was on his To Do list and that we agreed to take it off the agenda for that reason. Perhaps you could suggest how you want the WG to handle bugs for which the decision has been made, but the work not yet actually done? Simply leaving the bugs open like other bugs that have not yet been discussed or decided makes creation of agendas very difficult for me. 123500 5 mike 2015-10-06 09:06:29 +0000 Revert apparent vandalism (status change). 123504 6 jonathan.robie 2015-10-06 09:21:12 +0000 (In reply to Michael Kay from comment #5) > Revert apparent vandalism (status change). I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. 123507 7 mike 2015-10-06 09:48:18 +0000 If you examine the history you'll see that a user dakajo3711@yahoo.com.au recently made a strange and unauthorised change to the status of this (and some other) bugs. I was reverting the change to repair the damage.