This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
For the following tests: statictyping-3.xq statictyping-4.xq statictyping-5.xq statictyping-6.xq Our static typing implementation reports FORG0006 iso. XPTY0004 As FORG0006 seems to be more accurate, we believe it should be added as second expected error. Thanks, Marc
to complete the original list: ST-WhereExpr001.xq ST-WhereExpr002.xq statictyping-7.xq
I will go further and suggest that only FORG0006 be accepted.
Marc: Correct. Changed the expected error to be "FORG0006". Please close the bug if in agreement and when able to verify. Thanks, Carmelo
Reopened this bug. All of the listed tests have been fixed, with the exception of one. ST-WhereExpr002 still expects XPTY0004, where it should be FORG0006
Marc: Thanks for reopening this. The test case entry for ST-WhereExpr002 was changed to reflect correct code of "FORG0006". Please close the bug if in agreement. Thanks, Carmelo
I confirm this is resolved in XQTS 0.9.4
(In reply to comment #2) > I will go further and suggest that only FORG0006 be accepted. > Could I query why FORG0006 is the only expected result not XPTY0004? (I was about to report these tests being wrong for returning FORG0006). As a static typing test I'd have thought the static error would be correct, due to their failure to type check against the rules in 7.2.4 of the formal semantics?
The XML Query and XSL WGs have revisited this in Bug #6914 and decided to accept both XPTY0004 and FORG0006 as expected errors for these test cases.