This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 11493 - [XDM30] Requirement: map as a data type
Summary: [XDM30] Requirement: map as a data type
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Data Model 3.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Working drafts
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Norman Walsh
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
: 13187 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Reported: 2010-12-07 15:57 UTC by Michael Kay
Modified: 2011-09-06 13:34 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Description Michael Kay 2010-12-07 15:57:10 UTC
In response to action ACTION A-456-04, this bug registers the requirement to add "maps" to XDM as a new primitive data type.

A preliminary specification for maps appears in the internal editor's draft for XSLT 3.0 (the XSL WG has approved the facility in principle, but not the detailed specification). See

The addition of maps to XSLT is primarily driven by two use cases:

(a) the need for a richer data structure to accumulate partial results during streamed processing of an input document

(b) the need to provide support for import and export of data in JSON format, an increasingly popular format in our user community, with which we need to interwork effectively.

These two use cases are illustrated by examples in the specification cited.

In addition to these use cases, the facility serves a wide range of additional needs that have been identified over the years, and recognizes the fact that many modern programming languages have maps or dictionaries as a basic building block of their type systems.
Comment 1 Norman Walsh 2011-02-23 14:47:03 UTC
I revised section 2.8 to introduce map items:
Comment 2 Michael Kay 2011-02-23 18:02:16 UTC
I've reopened this because although it's tagged "XDM" for convenience, it's going to involve work in other specs as well as agreement in principle by both WGs, and having it as an open bug will keep it on the agenda.
Comment 3 Norman Walsh 2011-02-23 20:19:49 UTC
Fair enough. It seemed a little odd that Jim wanted this action finished before the f2f, but I did what I could.
Comment 4 Jim Melton 2011-02-23 22:26:41 UTC
I think this was my fault.  In my efforts to get decided bugs acted on and closed, I asked several authors, including Norm, to tackle their bugs.  In my haste, however, I gave Norm a list of two bugs, when I should have only given him one.  I apologize, Norm, for making this rather significant mistake, but thank you for doing what I requested.  Mike, thank you for reopening the bug, because, as you noted, the WGs have not formally considered this subject yet.  Apologies all around...
Comment 5 Michael Kay 2011-07-21 23:48:39 UTC
*** Bug 13187 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Norman Walsh 2011-09-06 13:34:12 UTC