- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 07:33:15 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1380 Summary: [XQuery] some editorial comments on A.1.1 grammar-note: xml-version 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-note: xml-version "For convenience, XML 1.0 references are always used." It isn't clear what the scope/meaning of that sentence is. Maybe change to "The EBNF only has references to the 1.0 versions." It would be nice to have links to the 1.1 versions too. Maybe the EBNF section should have something like this: It is implementation-defined whether to use these: [143] PITarget :: = [http:...1.0...] [148] CharRef :: = [http:...1.0...] [156] QName :: = [http:...1.0...] [157] NCName :: = [http:...1.0...] [158] S :: = [http:...1.0...] [159] Char :: = [http:...1.0...] or these: [143] PITarget :: = [http:...1.1...] [148] CharRef :: = [http:...1.1...] [156] QName :: = [http:...1.1...] [157] NCName :: = [http:...1.1...] [158] S :: = [http:...1.1...] [159] Char :: = [http:...1.1...] CharRef The external definitions of CharRef both have a well-formedness constraint. Does this apply to occurrences of CharRef in XQuery? And if so, what error occurs if a CharRef satisfies the EBNF but fails the WFC? "In some cases, the XML 1.0 and XML 1.1 definitions may be exactly the same." Why be coy? Presumably, the spec can say which are the same. As far as I can see, for PITarget, CharRef, and S, the two definitions are the same, and for QName, they're equivalent. (Leaves NCName and Char.) If the 1.0 and 1.1 definitions are the same, why not simply put the definition in the XQuery spec, instead of referring to it in two external specs? Well, I can see why you might not want to do it for PITarget, because you'd then need to have a production for 'Name', which might be confusing. But for CharRef, S, and QName, I don't see a downside. In fact, for CharRef, there's the added bonus that you wouldn't have to talk about how an external XML WFC relates (or doesn't) to XQuery, you could just express it as a grammar-note (or not). "just as it is not permitted in a textual XML document." Delete "textual" ? (Is there any other kind of XML document?)
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 07:33:19 UTC