- From: Jonathan Robie <jwrobie@mindspring.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:24:38 -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/2002Aug/0021.html >that did not receive a response from the WG. > >------ > >A.1 EBNF > >"The following grammar uses the same Basic Extended Backus-Naur Form >(EBNF) notation as [XML 1.0], except that grammar symbols always have >initial capital letters." > > I still wonder what the reason for this exception is. > > And that isn't the only difference from the notation used in XML. > In fact, you immediately discuss two others -- the <> terminal > groupings, and the /**/ production comments. Another is the use (in > prodns [11,19,21,26]) of references to symbols in other > specifications. Maybe you could just change "except that" to > something like "with the following minor differences". > > Also (this isn't actually a leftover comment, but while I'm here): > there's no reason to capitalize the word "Basic". The XML spec > itself uses the word "simple". > > (These comments also apply to a similar sentence in 1 Introduction.) > >----- > >A.2 Lexical structure > >"The rules for calculating these states are given in the A.2.2 Lexical >Rules section." > No, A.2.2 does not give rules for calculating the states. > >-Michael Dyck > > >
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 18:27:12 UTC