1669 2005-07-17 00:54:59 +0000 [FS] editorial: 4.8.2 For expression 2007-02-25 23:16:04 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT Formal Semantics 1.0 Last Call drafts All All CLOSED FIXED P2 minor --- 1 jmdyck simeon public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 4754 0 jmdyck 2005-07-17 00:54:59 +0000 4.8.2 For expression 4.8.2 / STA / rule 1 / conclusion "Type2 · quantifier(Type1)" There's no definition for this notation. Should it be in the syntax for (Formal) Type? STA / rule 3 / premise 4 "statEnv + varType(VarRef1 => Type0) |- Expr2 => Type2" The second arrow should be a bold colon. "The last rule contains a For expression" s/contains/handles/ "The most specific type possible is: element out {element one {}}, element out {element two {}}, element out {element three {}}" Huh? Isn't the most specific type (xs:decimal, xs:float, xs:integer)? "the iteration expression Expr1, is evaluated" Delete comma. DEv / rule 4 / premise 4 "statEnv |- VarRef of var expands to Variable" Move this premise up; it's interfering with the ellipsis. DEv / rule 5 / premise 3 "statEnv |- Item1 matches Type0" Move this premise down one line (after the line with premise 4 & 5 ) so that it can participate in the ellipsis. DErr "If any evaluation of the body of the for expression" "This rule applies to for expressions" s/for/For/ or <code>for</code> 9275 1 simeon 2006-04-17 00:52:46 +0000 Fixed as suggested. Added a pointer to the definition of operations between types and quantifiers in Section 8.4 Judgments for FLWOR and other expressions on sequences. - Jerome 12259 2 jmdyck 2006-10-03 20:50:34 +0000 Re: DEv / rule (4|5) While carrying out my suggested changes to these rules, you also moved up the dynEnv + varValue(Variable => Item1...) |- Expr2 => Value1 premise, which makes it look like it doesn't participate in the ellipsis. (Currently it looks like only the statEnv |- Itemi matches Type0 premises participate in the ellipsis.) I doubt this is what you want, so in each rule, move the "dynEnv ... Value1" premise back to where it was. 12286 3 jmdyck 2006-10-04 22:06:27 +0000 Or, instead of having a single ellipsis over pairs of premises, you could have two parallel ellipses, each over a single premise. 13597 4 simeon 2007-01-16 17:58:30 +0000 Fixed by moving the judgments into two separate ellipsis, as suggested in Comment #3. - Jerome