- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 01:42:02 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1379 ------- Additional Comments From cmsmcq@w3.org 2005-07-07 01:42 ------- On the whole, I'm inclined to think we should accept all or almost all of these editorial suggestions, including moving the two examples in A.2.3 into the list of examples in this note. I'm not sure how to phrase the bit about comments in constructors. If it is only a warning that some of the constructor production have the ws:explicit constraint, it should say that. On a related note, at least one reader finds it confusing that "(:", ":)", CommentContents, and Comment are all listed as terminal symbols in A.2.1. I think the production for Comment should be moved out of the main grammar in A.1 into a separate section in A.2 in which the rules for terminal symbols are defined. (Some other production rules should go along with it: the numeric literals and the terminal symbol types taken over from XML and Namespaces, for example.)
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 01:42:08 UTC