W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2009

[Bug 6027] [XPath] Extensions and Conformance

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:01:14 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1LMXec-0002KK-FH@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6027


Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jmdyck@ibiblio.org




--- Comment #6 from Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>  2009-01-13 01:01:14 ---
[personal response:]

I think the phrases "EBNF extensions" and "extensions to the EBNF" aren't
quite right. EBNF is a system of notation, so, properly speaking, "EBNF
extensions" would be extensions to that notation (in the same sense that
EBNF is itself an extension of BNF), which is not what we're concerned with
here. Instead, I suggest changing (in the text of Comment #5) all
occurrences of "EBNF" to "grammar", and the one occurrence of "grammar" to
"syntax".

Also, in the blurb for XPST0003, I suggest changing "Appendix A.1 EBNF" to
"Appendix A XQuery Grammar", since it takes more than just A.1 to define
the grammar. (For example, an implementation could extend the syntax for
IntegerLiteral (which appears in A.2) to include hexadecimal literals.
Presumably we would want such an extension to be covered by XPST0003's
"plus" clause.)


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 01:01:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:45:38 UTC