Re: [XPath] A.2.2 Parsing note

<scott_boag@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> The WG has considered this in the past, at least for the lexical tables,
> and has so far concluded they should be normative.  But we'll take a fresh
> look at it... I don't think there's any question that it would be better
> if they were non-normative.  The issue is only if they carry some
> information that is not stated elsewhere.  In some ways, this has been a
> changing picture as the grammar has evolved, so it may be that they used
> to carry unique information, but no longer do.

So you've built these lexical states, and you'd like to make them
non-normative, but you can't, because they might convey some information
not stated elsewhere. Only, you don't know if they do. Is that correct?
You don't actually know whether or not they're redundant?

It seems to me that that lack of knowledge alone means that you can't
risk making them normative. If in fact they're *not* redundant, and *do*
convey a restriction not stated elsewhere, it might be a restriction you
didn't intend. You don't know.

Do you intend to determine (before the next revision) whether or not
A.2.2 is redundant? (And if so, how?)

-Michael Dyck

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 18:31:36 UTC