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

[Bug 1667] New: [FS] editorial: 4.8.1 FLWOR expressions

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:48:08 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1DtwO8-00049z-KD@wiggum.w3.org>


           Summary: [FS] editorial: 4.8.1 FLWOR expressions
           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

4.8.1 FLWOR expressions


"[[ FLWORClause ]]_FLWOR (Expr)"
    As with
        AtomizeAtomic(SequenceType), and
    the "(Expr)" should be in subscript, otherwise it looks like the
    result of [[]]_FLWOR is a function name that is then applied to
    argument Expr.
    (But see the related technical comment.)

"The OrderByClause is discussed in [4.8.4 Order By and Return Clauses]."
    This would make more sense after Norm / rule 6, where we would expect
    to find the rule for normalizing OrderByClause.

    I don't think you need two Notation sections, especially since they're
    talking about the same thing. Delete the second "Notation".


"nested core expressions"

Norm / rule (2|3)
    If, for brevity, we let
        FLWOClause ::= ForClause | LetClause | WhereClause | OrderByClause
    then these two rules assume that XQuery FLWORExprs are defined by:
        FLWORExpr ::= FLWOClause FLWORExpr | FLWOClause "return" Expr
    which is quite different from the EBNF given in 4.8. It would be good
    if you acknowledged that the first step in normalizing FLWORExprs is
    to restructure them from the 4.8 syntax to this right-recursive syntax.
Received on Saturday, 16 July 2005 23:48:11 UTC

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