W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2005

[Bug 1373] [XQuery] some editorial comments on A.1 EBNF (productions)

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:12:29 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1DY3kD-00040Y-LJ@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1373


scott_boag@us.ibm.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|chamberl@almaden.ibm.com    |scott_boag@us.ibm.com




------- Additional Comments From scott_boag@us.ibm.com  2005-05-17 15:12 -------
> You've removed the phrase "except that grammar symbols always have initial
> capital letters" even though it's still true, still different from the
> notation used in the XML spec, and still unexplained.

MSM and I should have a conversation about this.  I'm curious as to why, in the
XML spec, there is:
[22] prolog ::= XMLDecl? Misc* (doctypedecl Misc*)?
vs.
[24] VersionInfo ::= S 'version' Eq ("'" VersionNum "'" | '"' VersionNum '"')

Section 6 states "Symbols are written with an initial capital letter if they are
the start symbol of a regular language, otherwise with an initial lowercase
letter."  But it seems like a fuzzy line.

I would like to be as consistent with the XML spec as possible.  How much
trouble would it cause to change capitalization on some symbol names?

> Note that the XML spec's grammar has production comments, 
> so it's not their
> *presence* here that's different, but rather their normative power.

I think they're normative in the XML spec too, though they're not used to help
define the grammar itself.  In any case, the paragraph explaining the comments
was not meant to be comparitive with the XML spec.
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2005 20:49:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:05 UTC