- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 05:18:03 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1373
------- Additional Comments From scott_boag@us.ibm.com 2005-07-08 05:18 -------
Editorial change notes:
> Instead, you might say
> "... may help a parser differentiate various constructs"
Done
> I think that the EBNF productions and the explanation of the EBNF notation
> should each be split into a separate section.
Notation section moved to subsection following the EBNF.
> Pulling some of this together, how about restructuring the preamble into
> something like this:
done.
> I think these would be clearer if you didn't split each of the choices
I don't think the improvement warrents a change at this point.
> [142] StringLiteral
> Change ('"' '"') to EscapeQuot.
> Change ("'" "'") to EscapeApos.
Done.
> If you factor out the overlap of ElementContentChar, QuotAttrContentChar,
> and AposAttrContentChar, and push it over to CommonContent, I think the
> result is simpler.
I don't think the improvement warrents a change at this point.
> I wonder if it would help the reader if the "ws: explicit" productions (and
> the intervening ones that don't care whether they're "ws: explicit" or not)
> were put together in a group.
I don't think the improvement warrents a change at this point.
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 05:18:07 UTC