W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > November 2006

RE: XSLT20: matching-substring and non-matching-substring vs "optional"

From: Michael Kay <mhk@mhk.me.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:05:46 -0000
To: "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "'Jim Melton'" <jim.melton@acm.org>
Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00df01c70830$a89ecba0$6401a8c0@turtle>

Thank you for sharing your views. On matters of style, you'll never get
everyone to agree. The document has been through 26 drafts and literally
thousands of comments have been made and addressed. If the only remaining
problem with the document is that it says some things twice, then it's
definitely time to ship.

Michael Kay
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Bjoern Hoehrmann
> Sent: 14 November 2006 16:31
> To: Jim Melton
> Cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XSLT20: matching-substring and 
> non-matching-substring vs "optional"
> 
> 
> * Jim Melton wrote:
> >Would it be any better if the XSL WG had changed the wording 
> to "each 
> >element is optional"?  That seems clearer to me.
> 
> The whole document seems poorly written when it comes to 
> content model and content model error handling discussions. 
> Most of the paragraph under discussion is redundant with the 
> content model description at the beginning, it only adds one 
> requirement. Similarily, the initial content model 
> description prohibits
> 
>   <xsl:analyze-string ...>
>     <xsl:fallback .../>
>     <xsl:matching-substring .../>
> 
> but this is missing from the prose. Therefore it would seem 
> best if the content model descriptions are updated to cover 
> all requirements, and any redundant discussion in the prose 
> is removed. For this specific in- stance, the existing paragraph
> 
>   [ERR XTSE1130] It is a static error if the xsl:analyze-string
>   instruction contains neither an xsl:matching-substring nor an
>   xsl:non-matching-substring element.
> 
> along with
> 
>   <!-- Content: (xsl:matching-substring?, xsl:non-matching-substring?,
>                  xsl:fallback*) -->
> 
> already covers anything the paragraph states, so its best 
> removed. I'm assuming that documents with static errors are 
> non-conforming. However, I could also somehow live with 
> replacing the paragraph with, e.g.,
> 
>   The xsl:analyze-string element must have a xsl:matching-substring
>   or a xsl:non-matching-substring child element.
> 
> or, at the very least, "Both elements are optional, and" is 
> removed from the paragraph, as I originally suggested. But 
> again, the excessive re- dundancy in the document makes it 
> very difficult to read. I don't think your suggestion is an 
> improvement.
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · 
> http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: 
> +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 
> http://www.websitedev.de/ 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2006 22:10:00 UTC

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