Bug 5347 – [XPath] XML 1.0/1.0 5ed

Bug 5347 - [XPath] XML 1.0/1.0 5ed

Summary:

[XPath] XML 1.0/1.0 5ed

Status:	RESOLVED FIXED

Product:	XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Component:	XPath 2.0
Version:	Recommendation
Platform:	PC Windows XP

Importance:	P2 normal
Target Milestone:	---
Assigned To:	Jonathan Robie
QA Contact:	Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs

URL:	http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath20/#parse-n...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2008-01-04 17:27 UTC by David Carlisle
Modified:	2009-02-19 20:46 UTC (History)
CC List:	3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description David Carlisle 2008-01-04 17:27:54 UTC

Xpath2 (and Xquery) says

An implementation's choice to support the [XML 1.0] and [XML Names], or [XML
1.1] and [XML Names 1.1] 

The [XML 1.0] links to the references appendix which in turn links to the
undated versions of the XML rec URI, so links to the "latest" version of XML
1.0.

If the currently proposed 5th edition of XML 1.0 is adopted, the Name
production in XML 1.0 will change to match that of XML 1.1. If that happens it
would appear to make an XPath processor that enforces the current XML 1.0 rules
non conformant. Is that the intention, or should the references section be
changed to refer to (say) the 4th edition using the fixed, dated URI.

Comment 1 Michael Kay 2008-01-04 17:42:31 UTC

If the proposed revision of XML 1.0 is accepted then I think we have to revisit
our whole policy of referring to undated versions of other specs. This is a
policy that relies on trust: we are trusting the authorities responsible for
those specifications to keep them extremely stable. If that trust is no longer
well-founded, such that a change in those specs can make existing
implementations non-conformant, then we have to move back to referring to dated
versions.

Comment 2 Jonathan Robie 2008-11-03 21:18:07 UTC

This is a valid question. The answer depends to some extent on what the XML
Core Working Group decides, so I'm accepting the issue without attempting to
resolve it yet.

Comment 3 David Carlisle 2008-11-03 21:30:11 UTC

(In reply to comment #1)
 If that trust is no longer
> well-founded, such that a change in those specs can make existing
> implementations non-conformant, then we have to move back to referring to dated
> versions.
> 

Actually on further investigation, I don't believe that referencing dated specs
will solve the problem. even if you refer to the 4th (or earlier) edition
explicitly then its standard header section says that the there may be
normative corrections in the errata, and this has _already_ been done.  The 4th
edition errata

http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-4e-errata

Already has published E09 which changes the Name production, so this is already
the offical XML syntax whether or not the 5th edition is published. By making
this change via the errata system, basically the intention of the XML core WG
is to remove choice and force all XML systems to switch (which is explicitly
the intent, following the lack of take-up of XML 1.1).

David

Comment 4 Michael Kay 2008-11-03 21:34:38 UTC

The status section of the 4e errata says that the errata "are not to be
considered normative until approved ..."

These are essentially proposals which if accepted will then be published as the
5th edition.

Comment 5 David Carlisle 2008-11-03 21:53:04 UTC

(In reply to comment #4)
> The status section of the 4e errata says that the errata "are not to be
> considered normative until approved ..."
> 
> These are essentially proposals which if accepted will then be published as the
> 5th edition.
> 

oops yes you are right, but the main point of comment #3 stands, once this
change _is_ approved, it will apply normatively by errata to earlier editions,
so just referencing a dated version would not be sufficient, you'd have to
explicitly (n words) refer to the edition as published, unmodified by errata.

David

Comment 6 Jonathan Robie 2009-02-03 16:26:44 UTC

and it's approved now:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/  

Jonathan

Comment 7 Jonathan Robie 2009-02-03 16:29:07 UTC

Looks like we can simply eliminate that choice now.

Jonathan

Comment 8 Anders Berglund 2009-02-05 18:22:04 UTC

At the 2009-02-05 telcon the XSL WG decided (subject to confirmation by the
XQuery WG) to adopt for XPath the analogous resolution that the XSLT XQuery
joint telcon decided to adopt for XQuery, namely:

XPath 2.0:

The version of XML 1.0 must be no earlier than the third edition;
the exact edition is implementation-defined, but we recommend that
implementations use the latest XML 1.0 version.

XPath 2.1:

Not refer to any specific edition (implying the latest).