- From: Jonathan Robie <jwrobie@mindspring.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:23:33 -0500
- To: Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Also editorial, right? Jonathan Michael Dyck wrote: >XQuery 1.0: An XML Query Language >W3C Working Draft 12 November 2003 > >Here are some comments from >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2002Nov/0090.html >that did not receive a response from the WG. > >It turns out that, in my recent submission: >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-qt-comments/2004Feb/0193.html >I already re-stated many of the unanswered comments from the Nov 2002 >posting. These two are the remainder. > >------ > >A.2.1 White Space Rules > >"white space is needed to disambiguate the token" > In my recent posting, I suggested changing "token" to "grammar". > But I think I prefer what I said in Nov 2002: > > The phrase "disambiguate the token" is, I believe, a misuse of > the concept of ambiguity. At any rate, I think it would be > plainer and more accurate to say that whitespace is needed to > prevent two adjacent tokens from being (mis-)recognized as one. > > For instance, consider the character-sequence > a- b > Note that there is a space before the 'b'. It thus has only one > derivation from Module (the "a minus b" one), so there is no > ambiguity involved, no disambiguation needed. Nevertheless, it > is still a case in which (I assume) whitespace is needed between > 'a' and '-' to prevent the longest-match rule from > (mis-)recognizing 'a-' as a QName. > > >"Special whitespace notation" > Note that only the *notation* is special. The treatment of > whitespace characters in "ws: explicit" and "ws: significant" > productions is *not* special: they treat them like any other > character, just as the XML spec does. It's the *unmarked* > productions that have special interpretation with respect to > whitespace. > >-Michael Dyck > > >
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 18:26:07 UTC