1798 2005-07-22 00:55:14 +0000 [FS] editorial: B.2 Mapping of Overloaded Internal Functions 2007-11-04 06:00:04 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT Formal Semantics 1.0 Last Call drafts All All ASSIGNED P2 minor --- 1 jmdyck jmdyck public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 5123 0 jmdyck 2005-07-22 00:55:14 +0000 B.2 Mapping of Overloaded Internal Functions DEv+STA It's odd to have DEv before STA. B.2 / STA / rule (1|2|3|4|5|6) / premise 2 "statEnv |- Expr1 : Type2" s/Expr1/Expr2/ B.2 / STA / rule (3|4|5|6) "statEnv |- operator type for AtomicType1 and AtomicType2 is AtomicType3" I don't think "statEnv |-" is needed. Notation "operator type for AtomicType1 and AtomicType2 is AtomicType3" This needs to include fs:opname! The result type isn't determined solely by the input types, e.g.: fs:plus(integer,integer) : integer, but fs:div( integer,integer) : double "Gregorian refers to the types xs:gYearMonth, xs:gYear, xs:gMonthDay, xs:gDay, and xs:gMonth. For binary operators that accept two Gregorian-type operands, both operands must have the same type" The only occurrences of "Gregorian" in the table are two (Gregorian, Gregorian) rows. So these are standing in for 10 rows with explicit input types and explicit "denotes". I think you'd be better off being explicit. (Considering that you expanded all the 'numeric' rows, you're clearly not going for brevity.) ("Binary Operators" table) In the rows for fs:gt, the input types are presented without the "xs:" prefix and without the <code> font. ("Unary Operators" table) Why does it use a smaller font than the "Binary Operators" table? 8935 1 simeon 2006-03-28 21:27:23 +0000 Fixed as suggested, except for the Gregorian case, left as is for consistency with the XQuery 1.0 specification. - Jerome 9427 2 jmdyck 2006-04-24 21:31:30 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > Fixed as suggested, except for the Gregorian case, left as is for consistency > with the XQuery 1.0 specification. If you want to be consistent with the XQuery spec, why did you expand the 'numeric' rows? 12333 3 jmdyck 2006-10-06 07:15:34 +0000 I'd like a response to my last comment.