W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > July 2005

[Bug 1380] [XQuery] some editorial comments on A.1.1 grammar-note: xml-version

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 05:04:53 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1Dr7WH-0004VA-VJ@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1380





------- Additional Comments From scott_boag@us.ibm.com  2005-07-09 05:04 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> A.1.1 grammar-note: xml-version
> 
> "For convenience, XML 1.0 references are always used."
>     It isn't clear what the scope/meaning of that sentence is.  Maybe change to
>     "The EBNF only has references to the 1.0 versions."
Done.

> 
>     It would be nice to have links to the 1.1 versions too.
>     Maybe the EBNF section should have something like this:
>         It is implementation-defined whether to use these:
>             [143] PITarget :: = [http:...1.0...]
>             [148] CharRef  :: = [http:...1.0...]
>             [156] QName    :: = [http:...1.0...]
>             [157] NCName   :: = [http:...1.0...]
>             [158] S        :: = [http:...1.0...]
>             [159] Char     :: = [http:...1.0...]
>         or these:
>             [143] PITarget :: = [http:...1.1...]
>             [148] CharRef  :: = [http:...1.1...]
>             [156] QName    :: = [http:...1.1...]
>             [157] NCName   :: = [http:...1.1...]
>             [158] S        :: = [http:...1.1...]
>             [159] Char     :: = [http:...1.1...]

I would rather not do this work, as it involves some production issues. 
Personally, i don't think it would really add anything but clutter.  It's easy
enough to chase down a 1.1 reference.  The bib refs are right there.

> 
> CharRef
>     The external definitions of CharRef both have a well-formedness constraint.
>     Does this apply to occurrences of CharRef in XQuery?  And if so, what error
>     occurs if a CharRef satisfies the EBNF but fails the WFC?

A WFC or other extra-grammatical constraint must be taken into account.  I've
added text to make this clear.

> 
> "In some cases, the XML 1.0 and XML 1.1 definitions may be exactly the same."
>     Why be coy?  Presumably, the spec can say which are the same.  As far as I
>     can see, for PITarget, CharRef, and S, the two definitions are the same, and
>     for QName, they're equivalent.  (Leaves NCName and Char.)
> 
>     If the 1.0 and 1.1 definitions are the same, why not simply put the
>     definition in the XQuery spec, instead of referring to it in two external
>     specs? Well, I can see why you might not want to do it for PITarget, because
>     you'd then need to have a production for 'Name', which might be confusing.
>     But for CharRef, S, and QName, I don't see a downside. In fact, for CharRef,
>     there's the added bonus that you wouldn't have to talk about how an external
>     XML WFC relates (or doesn't) to XQuery, you could just express it as a
>     grammar-note (or not).

I am happy with how these are expressed now, and don't think there's a real problem.

> 
> "just as it is not permitted in a textual XML document."
>     Delete "textual" ? (Is there any other kind of XML document?)

done.
Received on Saturday, 9 July 2005 05:04:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:25 UTC