- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:21:11 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13298 Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mike@saxonica.com --- Comment #2 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2011-07-19 13:21:10 UTC --- Some of these production rules were introduced to create a "handle" allowing the description of the semantics to refer to constructs in the grammar. Certainly I remember VarValue and VarDefaultValue being introduced expressly for this purpose. Similarly, AtomicOrUnionType is referenced in the description of error XPST0051. There might be some productions that are not referenced in the prose, but they would need to be checked on a case-by-case basis. We would also need to check that the production names are not referenced from another specification in the family, such as the XSLT specification. At best these additional production names add clarity and readability. At worst, they are harmless. I have always argued that the grammar should be designed primarily for the benefit of users of the language rather than implementors. There are some who disagree with me on this, but your arguments in my view take too much of an implementor viewpoint. Removing a few redundant productions is very easy compared with the other demands we place on implementors of this grammar. (personal response) -- 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 Tuesday, 19 July 2011 13:21:16 UTC