W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > June 2004

RE: Typos in the November XSLT 2.0 Specification

From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 17:10:48 +0100
To: "'Roger L. Costello'" <costello@mitre.org>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20040603161258.95C7CA0E94@frink.w3.org>
  _____  

From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Roger L. Costello
Sent: 03 June 2004 12:42
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org; costello@mitre.org
Subject: Typos in the November XSLT 2.0 Specification


Hi Folks,
 
I have finished reading the November XSLT 2.0 specification.  Below are my
comments.
 
Section 9.2
 
However, it is permissible for the default value to be depend on the values
... 
 
Thanks. Previously unreported. 
 
Typo: it should read: ... default value to depend ... (delete "be")
 
Section 9.5
 
... which it references in an attribute value template.
 
Typo: it should read: ... which is referenced in ... (replace "it" with
"is", add a "d" to reference) 
 
Not wrong as written, but the change is a minor stylistic improvement. 
 
Section 10.1
 
format="{$format}"/>
 
Typo: it should be: format="{$equation-format"/> (the variable is
equation-format, not format) 
 
Known error, already corrected. 
 
Section 6.4
 
No matter how many times I read this sentence, I am not able to figure out
what it's saying:
 
Next, all matching template rules that have lower priority than the matching
template rule or rules with the highest priority are eliminated from
consideration.  
 
I think this is carried straight over from XSLT 1.0. It means
 
let $s be the set of candidate template rules
 
let $t contain those rules R in $s that satisfy  (not exists T in $s such
that priority(T) > priority(R))
 
the new set of candidate template rules is $t.
 
I'm reluctant to change this text. As the lawyers say, it has served us well
enough.
 

Section 14
 
This whole section is extremely tough reading.  Without the excellent
examples I would have no idea what the section is saying.  I'm afraid that I
can't specifically nail down the trouble I had.  In general, I felt like it
jumped into the details before giving a good general understanding of what
the capability was all about. 
 
A spec is not a tutorial. I try hard to find a good balance between
specifying the language unambiguously and making it readable, but don't
always succeed (for all readers). It's true there's little by way of
introduction in this section, but the problem with introductions is always
that they simplify the truth, and therefore tend to contain statements that
contradict the normative detail.
 
Thanks for the comments,
 
Michael Kay 
 
/Roger
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 12:12:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:19 UTC