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 29893 - [XQX31] Appendix C
Summary: [XQX31] Appendix C
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XQueryX 3.1 (show other bugs)
Version: Working drafts
Hardware: PC All
: P2 editorial
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Josh Spiegel
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2016-10-04 08:00 UTC by Andrew Coleman
Modified: 2016-11-07 15:36 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Andrew Coleman 2016-10-04 08:00:08 UTC
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?
Comment 1 Josh Spiegel 2016-11-04 20:45:55 UTC
It looks like Section 8 is correct to me.  Where are you looking?
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
Comment 2 Michael Kay 2016-11-04 22:02:00 UTC
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.
Comment 3 Andrew Coleman 2016-11-07 11:59:01 UTC
> 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.
Comment 4 Josh Spiegel 2016-11-07 15:08:06 UTC
> 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.