- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 23:48:08 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1667 Summary: [FS] editorial: 4.8.1 FLWOR expressions Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT Version: Last Call drafts Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Formal Semantics AssignedTo: simeon@us.ibm.com ReportedBy: jmdyck@ibiblio.org QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org 4.8.1 FLWOR expressions Notation "[[ FLWORClause ]]_FLWOR (Expr)" As with FunctionArgument(SequenceType), AtomizeAtomic(SequenceType), and Convert(SequenceType), the "(Expr)" should be in subscript, otherwise it looks like the result of [[]]_FLWOR is a function name that is then applied to argument Expr. (But see the related technical comment.) "The OrderByClause is discussed in [4.8.4 Order By and Return Clauses]." This would make more sense after Norm / rule 6, where we would expect to find the rule for normalizing OrderByClause. Notation I don't think you need two Notation sections, especially since they're talking about the same thing. Delete the second "Notation". Norm "nested core expressions" s/core/Core/ Norm / rule (2|3) If, for brevity, we let FLWOClause ::= ForClause | LetClause | WhereClause | OrderByClause then these two rules assume that XQuery FLWORExprs are defined by: FLWORExpr ::= FLWOClause FLWORExpr | FLWOClause "return" Expr which is quite different from the EBNF given in 4.8. It would be good if you acknowledged that the first step in normalizing FLWORExprs is to restructure them from the 4.8 syntax to this right-recursive syntax.
Received on Saturday, 16 July 2005 23:48:11 UTC