- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:14:03 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3737 Summary: [FT] EBNF snippets confusing Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT Version: Working drafts Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows XP Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Full Text AssignedTo: jim.melton@acm.org ReportedBy: holstege@mathling.com QAContact: public-qt-comments@w3.org There is a general problem with the expression part of the EBNF, which is that it makes the sections look unconnected to each other and (ironically enough) obscures the actual syntax of each individual construct. For example, look at the EBNF at the top of section 3. FTSelection refers to FTOr. When we look at the next section, there is an EBNF for FTWords, but what is the relation of that to FTSelection? Dunno. What is FTOr? Well, its EBNF talks about FTAnd, which talks about FTUnaryNot, which talks about FTWordSelection which... um.. is nowhere to be found. So one is left to trolling through the appendix to figure out the connection between FTWords and FTSelection. Since FTWords is the workhorse, common case of FTSelection, this is a real problem in specification clarity. Fixing this in the grammar will be tricky, I recognize. Look in particular at sections 3.1.3/3.1.4/3.1.5 (FTAnd/FTMildNot/FTUnaryNot) What does FTMildNot have to do with FTAnd? Having FTMildNot reference FTUnaryNot is really really confusing, because you don't (can't) put a real unary not in that expression. And in 3.1.5 we go RIGHT off the deep end and claim that the "!" is optional for FTUnaryNot, which is baffling for people not deeply familiar with how the grammar is constructed. For this specific case I think we are better off making the grammar a teeny bit more complex and not trying to put FTWords syntactically under FTUnaryNot. Some other minor tweaks may be possible to make the snippets more meaningful.
Received on Monday, 18 September 2006 19:14:06 UTC