- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:39:02 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2710 ------- Comment #8 from scott_boag@us.ibm.com 2006-06-12 14:39 ------- (In reply to comment #7) I've tried to research the history of this. In the April 2006 telcon, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xsl-query/2006Feb/0030, the request was made to change the grammar to: [66] Pragma ::= "(#" S? QName (S PragmaContents)? "#)" Which I did. Mike Kay's comment (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2710#c4) and subsequent comments seem to have been made after this grammar change, which is confusing to me since the grammar now clearly allows for there being no whitespace after the QName. extexpr-26 of XQTS 0.9.0 has: (# ns1:you-do-not-know-me-as-index#){fn:count((1,2,3))} The XQTSCatalog lists this as being a "runtime-error" (erronious in any case for a syntax issue!), and the test contains the comment "Negative for extension expression for new sytax (missing space after pragma name)". I think this is a bad test... the test clearly parses under the current grammar. So the answer to Mike's question "If the pragmaContents is empty, should the whitespace still be required after the QName?" is "no", whitespace is not required. I don't think any further clarification is needed in the spec. Perhaps this bug should be transfered as a bug on extexpr-26? Will wait for ratification of the WGs to close the bug.
Received on Monday, 12 June 2006 14:39:07 UTC