28894 2015-07-05 19:16:01 +0000 [xp3.1] Appendix I.1 - incompatibilities 2015-07-14 08:27:58 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XPath 3.1 Last Call drafts SGI All RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 mike jonathan.robie josh.spiegel public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 121600 0 mike 2015-07-05 19:16:01 +0000 This section contains the paragraph If U is a union type with T as one of its members, and if E is an element with T as its type annotation, the expression ^ now returns true. In previous versions of XPath 3.1, it returned false. Firstly, I think "previous versions of XPath 3.1" is intended to read "XPath 3.0". Secondly, there is no expression at [^]. I found a possible answer in bug #27779 comment 2, which suggests that the missing expression is (E instance of element(*, U)) But as far as I can see this expression is true in both versions. Searching the history further led me to bug 11713, but I think that predates 3.0. So after spending half an hour on this, I haven't been able to determine what incompatibility we were trying to identify here. 121601 1 mike 2015-07-05 19:31:41 +0000 Found it (with the help of the CVS log). The entry was added in response to https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27141 and the example expression should indeed be (E instance of element(*, U)) But the incompatibility is between XPath 2.0 and XPath 3.0, not between 3.0 and 3.1. Bug #27141 suggested adding this entry to the 3.0 spec, but it has only been added to 3.1. 122005 2 jonathan.robie 2015-07-13 22:45:47 +0000 I'm not sure how best to address this now. We could put it in a NOTE in 3.1, we're not likely to republish XQuery 3.0 in the very near future so it is harder to change it there. 122014 3 josh.spiegel 2015-07-14 04:15:33 +0000 Does this work? (in "Incompatibilities") " If U is a union type with T as one of its members, and if E is an element with T as its type annotation, the expression E instance of element(*, U) returns true in both XPath 3.0 and 3.1. In XPath 2.0, it returns false. Note: This is not an incompatibility with XPath 3.0. It should be included in XPath 3.0 as an incompatibility with XPath 2.0 but it was discovered after publication. " 122018 4 mike 2015-07-14 08:27:58 +0000 Looks good to me.