28013 2015-02-13 21:06:03 +0000 Unnumbered Definitions – Unidentified Cross-References 2015-03-17 00:14:52 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XQuery 3.1 Candidate Recommendation PC Linux CLOSED DUPLICATE 28012 P2 normal --- 1 patrick jonathan.robie andrew_coleman public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 117895 0 patrick 2015-02-13 21:06:03 +0000 This is a duplicate of 28012 but on a different component. I was unable to select multiple components for a recurring issue in each component. Sorry. “Definitions” have anchors that allow them to be addressed by cross-references, but you should note that cross-references are text hyperlinks that have no identifier by which a reader can find the definition without using the hyperlink. That is to say when I see: *** A lexical QName with a prefix can be converted into an expanded QName by resolving its namespace prefix to a namespace URI, using the statically known namespaces. (in the paragraph following production [118] of XPath 3.1) *** The hyperlinks in the original will take me to various parts of the document where these definitions occur, but if I have printed the document, I have no clue where to look for these definitions. The better practice is to number all the definitions and since they are all self-contained, to put them in a single location. Additionally, all interlinear references to those definitions (or other internal cross-references) should have a visible reference that enables a reader to find the definition or cross-reference, without use of an internal hyperlink. Example: *** A lexical QName Def-21 with a prefix can be converted into an expanded QName Def-19 by resolving its namespace prefix to a namespace URI, using the statically known namespaces. Def-99 [These are fake links to draw your attention to the text in question. The Def numbers are fictitious in this example. Actual references would have the visible definition numbers assigned to the appropriate definition.] *** 118272 1 andrew_coleman 2015-03-04 14:11:33 +0000 Patrick, I acknowledge your point about there being no 'generic' component, but in the interest of tidiness, I have marked this as a duplicate of the bug that contains the most discussion (28012). Many thanks. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 28012 *** 118637 2 patrick 2015-03-17 00:14:52 +0000 See my comments at: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28012