- 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