29414 2016-02-01 00:17:39 +0000 [XP30][XP31] The judgement subtype-itemtype(Ai, Bi) is incorrect for function(*) 2016-02-17 19:01:03 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XPath 3.1 Candidate Recommendation PC Windows NT RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 abel.braaksma jonathan.robie josh.spiegel public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 124778 0 abel.braaksma 2016-02-01 00:17:39 +0000 In FO31, section 2.5.6.2 The judgement subtype-itemtype(Ai, Bi), list item 25 reads: 25. Bi is function(*). It says nothing about Ai. Which creates the strange rule that the expression: "1 instance of function(*)" would be true. This is clearly wrong. I suggest something along those lines: 25. Bi is function(*) and Ai is function(Aa_1, Aa_2, ... Aa_M) as Ar. 124789 1 mike 2016-02-01 15:32:47 +0000 The text in question is in XP31 not FO31. But yes, it does look fairly obviously wrong. 124814 2 jonathan.robie 2016-02-02 17:55:13 +0000 The current text is clearly wrong. I'm not yet certain that the proposed text is right ... I will look at this. 124815 3 jonathan.robie 2016-02-02 19:36:02 +0000 (In reply to Jonathan Robie from comment #2) > The current text is clearly wrong. I'm not yet certain that the proposed > text is right ... I will look at this. Here's what I found. The corresponding text in XQuery refers mostly to annotations, which do not exist in XPath. XQuery: > Bi is [AnnotationsB] function(*) , Ai is a FunctionTest with annotations > [AnnotationsA], and subtype-assertions(AnnotationsA, AnnotationsB), > where [AnnotationsB] and [AnnotationsA] are optional lists > of one or more annotations. The XPath text you mentioned is basically the XQuery text with all mention of annotations removed automatically. I suspect that nothing useful is left, and the entire item should simply be removed from XPath. If you agree, I would treat this as editorial. 124837 4 abel.braaksma 2016-02-04 14:58:19 +0000 > I suspect that nothing useful is left, and the entire item should simply > be removed from XPath. I agree that nothing useful is left, but removing it entirely would remove the ability to have a subtype relationship for function(*) and the like. If you remove it, a new item should take its place that corrects this. 124927 5 jonathan.robie 2016-02-09 03:00:55 +0000 (In reply to Abel Braaksma from comment #4) > > I suspect that nothing useful is left, and the entire item should simply > > be removed from XPath. > I agree that nothing useful is left, but removing it entirely would remove > the ability to have a subtype relationship for function(*) and the like. If > you remove it, a new item should take its place that corrects this. DOH. OK, I think I just messed up on the conditional markup the first time, I think I have it right now, just checked in the changes. 124935 6 abel.braaksma 2016-02-09 18:38:51 +0000 (In reply to Jonathan Robie from comment #5) > OK, I think I just messed up on the conditional markup the first time, I > think I have it right now, just checked in the changes. The text now reads: "Bi is function(*), Ai is a FunctionTest." I think that is correct, this translates to "any function is a subtype of function(*)". Note that there is now a typo (not sure it was there earlier) in the next point, item 26: <quote> where ; N (arity of Bi) equals M (arity of Ai); subtype(Ar, Br); and for values of I between 1 and N, subtype(Ba_I, Aa_I). </quote> there's a rogue ";" semi-colon. Briefly reopening the bug to get that under attention, for anything else, it is resolved, I think. 125132 7 josh.spiegel 2016-02-17 19:01:03 +0000 Fixed typo mentioned in comment 6.