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 3699 - nodecomparisonerr-1
Summary: nodecomparisonerr-1
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Query Test Suite
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XML Query Test Suite (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Andrew Eisenberg
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on: 3733
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-09-12 06:49 UTC by Tim Mills
Modified: 2006-09-21 06:21 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Tim Mills 2006-09-12 06:49:12 UTC
Although the test

fn:count(() is 100)

permits a type checking error, it also permits the result 0.

However, the rules for evaluating this state that:

1. The operands of a node comparison are evaluated in implementation-dependent order.
2. Each operand must be either a single node or an empty sequence; otherwise a type error is raised [err:XPTY0004].
3. If either operand is an empty sequence, the result of the comparison is an empty sequence, and the implementation need not evaluate the other operand or apply the operator. However, an implementation may choose to evaluate the other operand in order to determine whether it raises an error.

My reading of this is that (2) ensure that an error is raised before reaching stage (3).  If this is not the case, should the order of (2) and (3) not be switched for clarity?
Comment 1 Andrew Eisenberg 2006-09-15 19:33:58 UTC
I believe that this test case is correct and section 3.5.3, Node Comparisons, should be changed in the way that you suggest.

I will resolve this bug report when the WGs consider this change.
Comment 2 Andrew Eisenberg 2006-09-20 20:57:11 UTC
The WGs considered this in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3733 and agreed to make the change to the order of the rules that you suggested.

As such, I am not making any change to this test case.

Please mark this bug report closed if you agree with this resolution.

Comment 3 Tim Mills 2006-09-21 06:21:07 UTC
Thanks.