- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:22:18 GMT
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
The informal description has a couple of instances of "then returns false." which would probably read better as "then the function returns false" as otherwise there doesn't appear to be a subject. > If $lang is the empty sequence it is interpreted as the zero-length string. This should presumably be $testlang as there is no parameter called $lang in the function signature. > (The character "-" is HYPHEN-MINUS, %x002D) The syntax %x002D isn't used elsewhere, I suspect that #x002D is meant, as that is used in other places to denote a character by hex unicode value. The relevent attribute is unambiguously specified by an Xpath expression but the equality test used is described by a rather contorted (and perhaps under specified) prose description. It would be clearer if function was specified in its entirety by an Xpath expression, something like fn:upper-case(fn:replace((ancestor-or-self::*/@xml:lang)[last()],'-.*','')) = fn:upper-case($testlang) using an explict expression (specified as using unicode codepoint collation) such as the above would make it clearer what is meant by the current wording "ignoring case". If "ignoring case" means first uppercase then compare then dotless i would compare equal to i and ess-zed would compare equal to SS however if "ignoring case" means first lowercase then compare then both of the above two comparisons would compare non-equal. I don't think the current wording defines which of these (or other possible interpretations) should be used. Alternatively (and perhaps preferably) "ignoring case" should be replaced by an explict reference to 1.3 Caseless Matching in the Unicode case mapping appendix (TR 21). Note however that the current normative reference to Tr21 in F&O is to http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr21/ however that page just says Superseded Technical Report UAX#21: Case Mappings has been incorporated into the Unicode Standard Version 4.0, and is thus now superseded. The last version of that document before it was superseded can be found at http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr21/tr21-5.html So it might be better to make the normative reference be Unicode 4, with a non-normative reference to tr21-5, for the benefit of those of us without a unicode 4 book. David ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 17 November 2003 10:26:17 UTC