- 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