- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:49:26 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1701 ------- Additional Comments From fred.zemke@oracle.com 2005-07-26 22:49 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > I agree we should make sure to respell [For/FLWR] to [For/FLWOR]. > > We should also explains what that mean. We can do it as you suggest, possibly we > could also indicate this right at the beginning in the preliminaries. > > Any preference about how we do this? If you put it as a general statement in the preliminaries, then it would something like "[x/y] refers to something that is called 'x' in [XPath] and called 'y' in [XQuery]." However, [expression/query] is not actually called "expression" in either specification; it is called Expr in both, though I see XPath has XPath ::= Expr and XQuery has QueryBody ::= Expr. Similarly [For/FLWOR] is not actually called For or FLWOR. So there is no syntactic transform from [x/y] to its referents. This good be arranged, but it is probably simpler to just supply a definition whenever one of these symbols is introduced. Fred
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 22:49:28 UTC