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

[Bug 1535] New: [FS] editorial: 2.3.1 Formal values

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:32:04 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1DrVMC-0002BK-37@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1535

           Summary: [FS] editorial: 2.3.1 Formal values
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Last Call drafts
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Formal Semantics
        AssignedTo: simeon@us.ibm.com
        ReportedBy: jmdyck@ibiblio.org
         QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org


2.3.1 Formal values

[14] ProcessingInstructionValue ::=
"processing-instruction" QName "{" String "}"
    Change "QName" to "NCName".

[17] NamespaceBinding ::=
"namespace" NCName "{" String "}"
    I think you'll be better off if you change "String" to "AnyURI".

'In that grammar, "String" indicates the value space of xs:string,
"Decimal" indicates the value space of xs:decimal, etc.'
    Please clarify.
    Are you saying that, for example, the symbol 'String' "derives" a
    language of (abstract, non-syntactic) values (namely, the values in
    the value space of xs:string)?
    Or rather, that it derives (though by unspecified productions) a
    conventional language of character-sequences, each of which you
    identify with a value from that value space?

    Examples like these:
        text { "42" }             # i.e., String derives '"42"'
        10 of type xs:integer     # i.e., Decimal derives '10'
    certainly appear to assume the latter. But it seems to just forestall
    the inevitable matter of the syntactic-to-abstract mapping. And
    presumably we are to assume that the standard functions (on which
    the dynamic semantics are built) take and return abstract values
    rather than syntactic denoters thereof.

element weight of type xs:integer { text { "42" } } {}
    This does not conform to production "[9 (Formal)] ElementValue":
    if the final braces are there, then there has to be at least
    one NamespaceBinding between them.

"The same rule about constructing sequences apply"
    s/rule/rules/ or s/apply/applies/
    Which rule(s)? (Give a cross ref?)

(10, (1, 2), (), (3, 4))
    Actually, this isn't a "value described by that grammar", because the
    grammar has no production for parenthesized values.

"When the context is clear, we may omit the type annotation on literal
values."
    Hm. You've already said:
        "Atomic values without type annotations are assumed to have a type
        annotation which is the base type for the corresponding value."
    Does this new sentence add something?
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2005 06:32:07 UTC

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