W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xpath-comments@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: change proposals for section 5 of the XPath 1.0 specification

From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 20:51:56 -0600
Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
Message-Id: <2A53C556-384A-4649-8EC2-94CB62CF18DE@blackmesatech.com>
To: www-xpath-comments@w3.org

On 22 Apr 2010, at 20:14 , C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
> ...
> (2a) In 5.2 Element Nodes, in the first paragraph, replace
>    There is an element node for every element in the document.
> with
>    When a tree is constructed from an XML document, the tree contains
>    one element node for every occurrence in the document of any
>    string of characters matching the "element" production of [XML].

Rereading this today, I think it would probably be better to replace
"every" with "each", to avoid the possible interpretation of "every
occurrence" as meaning the class of all occurrences.  That  
probably makes no sense in context, but it can't be ruled out on
grammatical grounds alone; 'each' is better in that regard.

Similar changes would be needed for 2b and 2c.

> Changes 3a and 3b together guarantee that the serialization of an  
> element will not violate the WF constraint "Unique Att Spec".

It may be obvious to all readers, but just in case I'll note that
the reference to "3a and 3b" appears to be a typo for "3b and 3c".
It's what I get for numbering things manually and then continuing
to edit and reorganize the document.

> Similarly, if the descendant includes (A -> B), then B is a  
> descendant of A.
for "the descendant" read "the descendant relation".

* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib
* http://balisage.net
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 02:52:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:16 UTC