29616 2016-05-07 21:33:45 +0000 [QT3] format-date-044 2016-05-10 14:17:02 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XQuery 3 & XPath 3 Test Suite Working drafts PC Linux RESOLVED INVALID P2 normal --- 1 benito oneil abel.braaksma josh.spiegel public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 126369 0 benito 2016-05-07 21:33:45 +0000 In format-date-044 format "[Y#.0,2]" has width formatter "2" which has no max width, and thus should not truncate the year 126374 1 josh.spiegel 2016-05-08 18:22:56 +0000 This was added to test comment 10 of bug 29555. In this case, year should be truncated. Closing as invalid but you can reopen if you disagree after reviewing the comment. 126377 2 benito 2016-05-08 20:04:07 +0000 >(i) if the width modifier is present and includes a maximum width, I was thinking if the modifier is there, then it always has an implicit maximum. 126396 3 benito 2016-05-10 08:59:07 +0000 It is also not clear what happens to fractions with such a format format-time(xs:time("12:22:33.123456"), "[f#.0,2]") The fraction truncation should probably be consistent with the year truncation 126399 4 abel.braaksma 2016-05-10 13:47:45 +0000 (In reply to Benito van der Zander from comment #3) > It is also not clear what happens to fractions with such a format > > format-time(xs:time("12:22:33.123456"), "[f#.0,2]") > > The fraction truncation should probably be consistent with the year > truncation In Bug 29555, comment 3, the proposal is (and I think it was accepted) that the first presentation modifier *must* follow the pattern "\d+#*". Your pattern is therefore not allowed (the "." should not appear there and the "0" cannot follow the "#"). The proper way to express a min width of 2 would be: format-time(xs:time("12:22:33.123456"), "[f0#,2]") or: format-time(xs:time("12:22:33.123456"), "[f0,2]") or: format-time(xs:time("12:22:33.123456"), "[f00]") Note that the first two expressions above have a max width of infinity according to that same comment. To force a max of two digits, one has to write: format-time(xs:time("12:22:33.123456"), "[f0#,2-2]") or: format-time(xs:time("12:22:33.123456"), "[f0,2-2]") 126401 5 benito 2016-05-10 14:09:46 +0000 Then compare the output of format-time(xs:time("12:22:33.123456"), "[f00,2]") and format-date(xs:date('2016-01-01'), '[Y00,2]') 126402 6 josh.spiegel 2016-05-10 14:17:02 +0000 Benito, if you think we need consistency in these cases, can you either file a new bug against the specification or make the comment on bug 29555?