[Bug 1375] New: [XQuery] some editorial comments on A.1.1 Grammar Notes (general)

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1375

           Summary: [XQuery] some editorial comments on A.1.1 Grammar Notes
                    (general)
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Last Call drafts
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XQuery
        AssignedTo: chamberl@almaden.ibm.com
        ReportedBy: jmdyck@ibiblio.org
         QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org


A.1.1 Grammar Notes (general)

"Note"
    A.1 EBNF says that production comments are normative, but 1 Introduction
    says that material labeled as "Note" is not normative.

"This section contains general notes on the EBNF productions, which may be
helpful in understanding how to create a parser based on this EBNF, how to read
the EBNF, and generally call out issues with the syntax."
    If that were all, then they wouldn't have to be normative. But in fact, some
    of them do affect the language being defined. (And so those probably
    shouldn't be called notes.)

    I think 'parens', 'lt', and 'comments' are the only true "notes" (i.e. mere
    "helpful hints").

    Which ones help in understanding how to read the EBNF? That's the job of the
    previous section.

(examples)
    From A.1.1 to A.2.3, could the examples be put in
        <div class="exampleInner">
    The <code> font is 'monospace', and the <body> font is 'sans-serif', which
    aren't that easy to distinguish when run together inline.

(leading-lone-slash, reserved-function-names, and occurrence-indicators)
    These notes are actually fairly similar, but this is obscured by the
    different ways they're written. You might be able to increase understanding
    by handling them more uniformly.
    [See a later comment for suggested alternate wording for these notes.]

Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 07:29:55 UTC