[Bug 30006] New: [XP31] Ignorable whitespace (probably editorial)

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=30006

            Bug ID: 30006
           Summary: [XP31] Ignorable whitespace (probably editorial)
           Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
           Version: Candidate Recommendation
          Hardware: PC
                OS: Windows NT
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XPath 3.1
          Assignee: jonathan.robie@gmail.com
          Reporter: abel.braaksma@xs4all.nl
        QA Contact: public-qt-comments@w3.org
  Target Milestone: ---

When trying to find out whether the production for cast as required a space
between "cast" and "as" (I know it requires one, just wanted to see it written)
I went through the following:

1) Reading section A.1 EBNF, which points to A.1.1 Notation, and hit a dead
end.

2) Searched for "whitespace rules" and came to A.2.4 whitespace Rules, here
ignorable whitespace is discussed which suggests (but does not specify) that
whitespace is not required, because of the term "ignorable" and "may occur
between terminals".

3) At this point I decided to lookup XML 1.0 EBNF whether that had anything
conclusion. A dead end again.

4) Eventually I found A.2.2 Terminal Delimitation, where the correct rules are
explained.

I was wondering whether 

I) A.1.1, in its section on terminals, could point forward to the section on
terminal delimitation (which is *not* in the same main section on EBNF, I mean,
not under A.1).

II) We could make the language under *ignorable whitespace* somewhat explicit
to the fact that while whitespace is ignorable, it is often required to
separate two symbols, even though we don't have ws-explicit everywhere.

III) With, or as alternative to II, add a backward link under A.2.4 on
ignorable whitespace to A.2.2, to signify it is often *not* ignorable.


Or basically anything that removes the confusion I felt today (I am not saying
the rules are wrong, I just think they are somewhat counter-intuitive or
slightly lacking).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2016 21:41:48 UTC