- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:19:25 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1383 ------- Additional Comments From scott_boag@us.ibm.com 2005-07-19 20:19 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Is there a context for which '>>' and '>' '>' are both valid continuations? Not if you don't consider non-legal sentences. Another case is "descendant-or-self" vs. "descendant" which can occur in the same context. In my parser oriented mind, you need to decide if descendant-or-self::foo has "descendant" followed by some other characters, vs. "descendant-or-self", thus you keep searching for the longest token that matches. On the other hand, you're saying, in terms of the spec, if keyword delimitation is clear, which I think it is, there's only one choice: "descendant-or-self", which is either legal or not. If "descendant-or-self::foo" could be interpreted as "descendant - or-self::foo" (i.e. a subtraction operation), then we would need a longest token rule perhaps. In summary, after thinking about it more, I can't justify having the longest token rule, especially when the spec requires no specific tokenization spec. So, I'm leaning on the side that this rule should be deleted. I'm interested if any other WG members can justify it.
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2005 20:19:27 UTC