RE: [XPath] Consistency of Appendix A Grammar presentation for Fu ncti onName

Hi Michael

Yes. Very confusing terminology.

Because separately lexed words are reserved in most languages, I
referred to separately lexed words as 'reserved' in XPath. Of course
they're not. Please read 'reserved' as 'awkward'.

The "A.2.2 Parsing note" thread has an explanation and demonstration of
how PartialNcName excluding the 'awkward' words is lexed and
then built up into NcName in the grammar.

	Regards

		Ed Willink

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay, Michael [mailto:Michael.Kay@softwareag.com]
> Sent: 28 January 2004 17:37
> To: Willink, Ed; scott_boag@us.ibm.com
> Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [XPath] Consistency of Appendix A Grammar 
> presentation for
> Fu ncti onName
> 
> 
> > 
> > NcName is therefore short of all reserved words.
> 
> But there aren't any reserved words! A great deal of the complexity in
> the grammar arises because of this property.
> 
> Michael Kay
> 
> 
> > QNameWithColon is QName less NcName.
> > 
> > Then my CUP grammar builds up the FunctionName 'terminal' as 
> > the summation of the NcName sub-set plus all reserved words 
> > except appendix A.3. Then the NcName can be built as 
> > FunctionName plus the remaining reserved words. Then QName as 
> > QNameWithColon and NcName. No shift-reduce conflicts.
> > 
> > In practice my grammar is rather more complex because it is 
> > part of NiceXSL and so has XSLT keywords to deal with as 
> > well. In working form look the xpath_* productions in:
> > 
> > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/nicexsl/nicex
> > sl/src/net/sf/
> > nicexsl/NiceXSL.cup?rev=1.3
> > 
> > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/nicexsl/nicex
> > sl/src/net/sf/
> > nicexsl/NiceXSL.lex?rev=1.3
> > 
> > 	Regards
> > 
> > 		Ed Willink
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: scott_boag@us.ibm.com [mailto:scott_boag@us.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: 28 January 2004 14:59
> > > To: Willink, Ed
> > > Cc: 'public-qt-comments@w3.org'
> > > Subject: Re: [XPath] Consistency of Appendix A Grammar
> > > presentation for
> > > Functi onName
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ed, thanks for your last call comment.  It will be 
> processed by the
> > > working group.
> > > 
> > > You make an interesting and valuable point that function
> > > names in the BNF 
> > > need some sort of annotion spelling out the relation with 
> reserved 
> > > function names.  There may be some technical problems with 
> > > the solution 
> > > you suggest, but I'll see what can be done.
> > > 
> > > -scott
> > > 
> > > public-qt-comments-request@w3.org wrote on 01/27/2004 06:48:02 AM:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi
> > > > 
> > > > Section A.1.1 and A.2.1 provide helpful grammar notes that
> > > are clearly
> > > > visible in the preceding BNF.
> > > > 
> > > > Section A.3 provides equally significant clarification that
> > > does not.
> > > > For no very obvious reason gratuitous ElementName and 
> > AttributeName 
> > > > aliases for QName are provided, yet there is no
> > > FunctionName to which
> > > the
> > > > A.3 text should be annotated.
> > > > 
> > > > Therefore please replace QName by FunctionName in 
> > FunctionCall and 
> > > > add e.g.
> > > > 
> > > > FunctionName ::= QName /* A.3 reserved names */
> > > > 
> > > >    Regards
> > > > 
> > > >       Ed Willink
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------
> > > > E.D.Willink,                             Email: 
> > mailto:EdWillink@iee.org
> > > Thales Research and Technology (UK) Ltd, Tel:  +44 118 923 
> > 8278 (direct)
> > > Worton Drive,                            or  +44 118 986 
> > 8601 (ext 8278)
> > > Worton Grange Business Park,             Fax:  +44 118 923 8399
> > > Reading,   RG2 0SB
> > > ENGLAND          
> > http://www.computing.surrey.ac.uk/personal/pg/> E.Willink
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Thursday, 29 January 2004 04:57:34 UTC