16104 2012-02-24 10:52:07 +0000 [XQ30] Distinct annotation names; and error XQST0116 2013-06-19 09:15:18 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XQuery 3.0 Last Call drafts PC All CLOSED FIXED P2 minor --- 1 mike jonathan.robie jim.melton john.snelson josh.spiegel public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 64530 0 mike 2012-02-24 10:52:07 +0000 (1) I think there should be a rule that the annotations on a variable or function should have distinct names. Without such a rule, annotion assertions don't seem to make much sense. We don't seem to have such a rule at the moment. (2) Quote: It is a static error [err:XQST0116] if a variable declaration's's annotations contain more than one annotation named %private or %public. Three problems here. (a) the doubled "'s" (b) the sentence is ambiguous, it doesn't really state clearly that you can't have one annotation named %private and another named %public. (c) there is no corresponding error for function annotations. If we fix (1) above then we can write this as It is a static error [err:XQST0116] if the set of annotations on a function declaration or variable declaration inlcudes both a %public and a %private annotation. 65831 1 josh.spiegel 2012-03-20 14:41:21 +0000 With respect to (c), I think there is a corresponding error in section 4.18: "It is a static error [err:XQST0106] if a function's annotations contain more than one annotation named ""http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions"":private or ""http://www.w3.org/2005/xpath-functions"":public." 66280 2 john.snelson 2012-03-30 08:59:42 +0000 With respect to (1), I disagree. It's perfectly acceptable to have more than one annotation with the same name - what that means is defined by the implementation that understands the annotation. For instance, it seems perfectly reasonable for a given function to be made available at two different URLs using the (hypothetical) %rest:url annotation. With respect to (2c), there is no annotation assertion error because %public and %private are not valid as a annotation assertions. 68998 3 jonathan.robie 2012-06-12 16:23:48 +0000 As Mary pointed out today, it may make sense to have two annotations with the same name and different parameters. 68999 4 jonathan.robie 2012-06-12 16:27:32 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > (1) I think there should be a rule that the annotations on a variable or > function should have distinct names. Without such a rule, annotion assertions > don't seem to make much sense. We don't seem to have such a rule at the moment. The WG disagrees - it makes sense to allow multiple annotation assertions with the same name and different parameters. > (c) there is no corresponding error for function annotations. > > If we fix (1) above then we can write this as > > It is a static error [err:XQST0116] if the set of annotations on a function > declaration or variable declaration inlcudes both a %public and a %private > annotation. The WG disagrees. There are no annotation assertions for %public and %private. 69000 5 jonathan.robie 2012-06-12 16:28:15 +0000 I agree with this - it's editorial: > Three problems here. > > (a) the doubled "'s" > > (b) the sentence is ambiguous, it doesn't really state clearly that you can't > have one annotation named %private and another named %public.