1606 Drop named item types, refine named record types, esp in XSLT - #1617
1606 Drop named item types, refine named record types, esp in XSLT#1617michaelhkay wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3885/forward-vs-forwards I struggle with subtle distinctions like this because I'm not a native speaker of American. |
366c97d to
98e1a0b
Compare
|
There was inconclusive discussion of this on 17 Dec 2024. Some felt that named item types (other than record types) were a useful feature and were reluctant to see them go, although the duplication was recognised as being potentially confusing. |
Co-authored-by: Christian Grün <christian.gruen@gmail.com>
98e1a0b to
b6e4159
Compare
|
Closed as abandoned. Superseded by #1708 for the XSLT parts. |
|
Note: Named item types were included in the baseline draft adopted by the Community Group when it started work, and were thus not added by any specific PR. This PR, which attempted to remove them but failed, is now being referenced from the specification and from test cases as the definitive PR for the xsl:item-type feature. |
Fix #1606
Fix #1506
Fix #1485
This PR drops the general concept of declaring named item types in XQuery and XSLT, and focuses on declaring named record types. The rules for named record types are tidied up editorially in XQuery (for example there is a clearer distinction between the syntax production
RecordTypeand the concept of a record type, which can be declared either using that syntax, or otherwise). In XSLT the<xsl:item-type>declaration is dropped and an<xsl:record-type>declaration is introduced.