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 29534 - format-number
Summary: format-number
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Functions and Operators 3.1 (show other bugs)
Version: Candidate Recommendation
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Kay
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2016-03-15 20:41 UTC by Benito van der Zander
Modified: 2016-04-19 08:56 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Benito van der Zander 2016-03-15 20:41:34 UTC
format-number needs clarification how grouping separators are regularly repeated, similar to #29488 for format-integer



Also there are test cases cbcl-fn-format-number-015 and -027 with
format-number(xs:decimal('123456789'), '###,##,00') and format-number(xs:double('123456789'), '###,##,00') expecting 1,23,45,67,89
Comment 1 Michael Kay 2016-04-12 13:31:21 UTC
Regarding the first point, I did this at the same time as fixing bug 29488, and the revised text is in the current editor's draft on the group pages. (See 4.7.4: "The grouping is defined to be regular if the following conditions apply:....)

On the second part of the question, I agree that these two test results are now wrong. We need to discuss what the expected results for 3.0 should be (the simplest fix, since we're not maintaining 3.0, is simply to publish no 3.0 test for this situation.)
Comment 2 Andrew Coleman 2016-04-14 18:44:50 UTC
At the meeting on 2016-04-12, the WG decided to adopt the simple fix proposed in comment 1.  The function was previously underspecified, these tests are new, so there is no real compatibility issue with XQuery 3.0.

Action A-639-01 will track this change.
Comment 3 Michael Kay 2016-04-19 08:56:51 UTC
I have updated the two tests concerned.

As agreed at the meeting, I did not attempt to make the results conditional on 3.1 support, since this was deemed a clarification to the spec rather than a change.