- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:25:32 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6131 --- Comment #17 from John Snelson <john.snelson@oracle.com> 2009-07-09 13:25:32 --- (In reply to comment #15) > >XQuery SX doesn't have an expression that starts with "{" any more. > > That's good. In that case the only problem I can see "by eye" is > > [134] CompElemConstructor ::= "element" (QName | ("{" Expr "}")) "{" > ContentExpr? "}" > > and the equivalent for attributes, where one would have to insist that the > QName is a QName in the current sense, and not an EQName. Either that or require that a Clark name has no spaces in it. If it's matched as a single token then there's no ambiguity. > If we go for Clark names, the other question is what do about namespace names > containing "{" or "}". The simplest is just to say they aren't allowed when > using this format. That's not a big restriction because the namespace spec > strongly encourages that namespace names should be valid IRIs (though it > doesn't make it an error if they aren't). I think that's reasonable. > However, I do feel this syntax is a bit more fragile in that it overloads use > of existing symbols. Using a new character such as back-tick would give less > risk of future problems extending the grammar, and less danger of poor error > messages for incorrect queries. I agree, but I think it's a risk worth taking to use a syntax that most people using XML already understand. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 13:25:42 UTC