- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 04:48:12 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1379
------- Additional Comments From scott_boag@us.ibm.com 2005-07-09 04:48 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> A.1.1 grammar-note: comments
>
> "Expression comments"
> Change to "Comments".
Done. (note the original wording was there to distinguish from XML comments,
but I'm OK with loosing it.)
>
> "are allowed inside expressions"
> And elsewhere.
Just lost "inside expression, so... "Comments are allowed everywhere that
<termref def="IgnorableWhitespace">ignorable whitespace</termref> is allowed.".
>
> "Note that expression comments"
> Change "expression comments" to "comments".
Done.
>
> "are not allowed in constructor content"
> Insert "direct" before "constructor" ?
Done.
>
> Actually, they *are* allowed in constructor content, given a suitable
> definition of "in":
> <a> { "foo" (:comment:) } </a>
Modified to "Note that comments are not allowed in direct constructor content,
though they are allowed in nested <nt def="EnclosedExpr">EnclosedExprs</nt>."
Still clunky, but good enough, i think.
>
> "Comments can nest within each other,"
> "within each other" suggests 'A within B, and B within A.' Change to just
> "Comments can nest" or "A comment can contain nested comments".
Done.
>
> "as long as all "(:" and ":)" patterns are balanced, no matter where they occur
> within the outer comment."
> Well, that's basically what it means for comments to nest.
Yes, but I'm trying to emphasize that commenting out the string "(:", for
instance, (: "(:" :), results in a syntax error.
>
> Change sentence to:
> A comment can contain nested comments. This means that occurrences of
> "(:" and ":)" in the body of the comment must be balanced.
I slightly prefer my wording.
>
> "will parse correctly"
> Leave the parser out of it. Change to "is syntactically legal".
Done.
>
> "ignoring the comment"
> A dangling participle, I think.
Dangling participle removed.
>
> "<eg (: an example:)> $i//title </eg>"
> Maybe you intended to put $i//title within braces.
Uh, yes.
>
> "but characters inside the element is element content"
> Change "is" to "are".
>
> Maybe change phrase to "but the characters that look like a comment are in
> fact literal element content".
Done.
>
> "and not an expression comment"
> Change "expression comment" to "comment".
Superseded by previous.
>
> "See Comments, Pragmas and Extensions for further information and examples."
> The name of that section is now just "Comments".
Changed to <specref ref="CommentsPragmasExtensions"/>
>
> It's silly to split information and examples between here and A.2.3. Please
> merge them.
Grammar note changed to:
<gitem id="parse-note-comments"><label>comments</label><def><p>Comments are
allowed everywhere that <termref def="IgnorableWhitespace">ignorable
whitespace</termref> is allowed, and so does not explicity appear on the
right-hand side of the grammar (except in it's own production).</p><p>Comments
are allowed everywhere that <termref def="IgnorableWhitespace">ignorable
whitespace</termref> is allowed. <phrase role="xquery">Note that comments are
not allowed in direct constructor content, though they are allowed in nested
<nt def="EnclosedExpr">EnclosedExprs</nt>.</phrase> </p><p>See <specref
ref="CommentsPragmasExtensions"/> for further information and
examples.</p></def></gitem>
The rest has been merged to the comments section.
Received on Saturday, 9 July 2005 04:48:15 UTC