29893 2016-10-04 08:00:08 +0000 [XQX31] Appendix C 2016-11-07 15:36:17 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XPath / XQuery / XSLT XQueryX 3.1 Working drafts PC All RESOLVED FIXED P2 editorial --- 1 andrew_coleman josh.spiegel mike public-qt-comments oldest_to_newest 127628 0 andrew_coleman 2016-10-04 08:00:08 +0000 In section C.2.2 Security considerations The text currently says: "Therefore, the security issues of [RFC3987] Section 8 should be considered." Looking at RFC3987, it appears this should actually refer to section 10 (security considerations)... "Therefore, the security issues of [RFC3987] Section 10 should be considered." In the same paragraph, it says: "XQuery expressions can invoke any of the functions defined in XQuery and XPath Functions and Operators 3.1, including file-exists(); a doc() function..." F&O is referred to in the text, but it is not linked to an entry in the references section. file-exists() and doc() could also be linked to F&O. C.2.3 Interoperability Considerations "See [TITLE OF XQ31 SPEC, TITLE OF id-xquery-conformance SECTION]XQ31 ." The reference is not getting inserted correctly C.2.5 Applications That Use This Media Type "This new media type is being registered to allow for deployment of XQueryX on the World Wide Web." Is this still true? What is the current status of this? 128054 1 josh.spiegel 2016-11-04 20:45:55 +0000 It looks like Section 8 is correct to me. Where are you looking? https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt 128056 2 mike 2016-11-04 22:02:00 +0000 There is no file-exists() function. Presumably doc-available() was intended. I can't see any particular reason why the XQueryX 3.1 security considerations appendix shouldn't be word-for-word identical with that for XQuery 31. Not sure why the status of this bug is resolved/fixed, reopening just to be sure. 128095 3 andrew_coleman 2016-11-07 11:59:01 +0000 > It looks like Section 8 is correct to me. Where are you looking? My bad. I was still looking at RFC3023 (referenced in the previous section) which has a section 10 on Security Considerations. Ignore me. 128097 4 josh.spiegel 2016-11-07 15:08:06 +0000 > I can't see any particular reason why the XQueryX 3.1 security > considerations appendix shouldn't be word-for-word identical with > that for XQuery 31. Yes, thanks. It looks like this was the intent but the XQueryX version has lagged behind.