- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 12:36:02 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18861
Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl
--- Comment #7 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> ---
Around the same time that I added this suggestion, the internal WD was updated
and included part of the suggestions that I added here (apparently, I was on
the same page as the editor ;) ).
>From the discussion that followed, I've come to understand that it is not
possible to write the EBNF in such a way that it unambiguously allows
namespaces or EQNames for the rooted functions.
What remains is
- should we rename FunctionCallP to something like RootedFunctionCall?
- should fn:id() etc be allowed or disallowed, whether in the EBNF or not? The
EBNF of XSLT 2.0 disallowed it, but processors seem to silently allow using
namespaces. Explicitly disallowing it would mean a backward compatibility issue
with current practice, but not with the standard, allowing it would mean a
semantic rule on top of the pattern syntax. Doing nothing would keep the status
quo.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 27 July 2013 12:36:03 UTC