- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:36:47 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29415
Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |---
--- Comment #3 from Abel Braaksma <abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl> ---
This issue was fixed with a new text added to the spec, see:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-query/2016Feb/0017.html
However, this leaves one other location where the ambiguity is still in place,
i.e. in the section on back-references:
<quote>
A back-reference is an additional kind of atom. The construct \N where N is a
single digit is always recognized as a back-reference; if this is followed by
further digits, these digits are taken to be part of the back-reference if and
only if the resulting number NN is such that the back-reference is preceded by
NN or more unescaped opening parentheses.
</quote>
"NN or more unescaped opening parentheses" is too broad for the same reasons as
what originated this bug.
I suggest to point here to the section above, something like "NN or more
opening [#LINK capturing parentheses]", where the link points to the section on
"Sub-expressions (groups)".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2016 20:36:51 UTC