RE: decision re optional Expr in braces

Michael and I just compared the IRC log to the minutes, and I think the minutes added three expressions that weren't part of the original agreement: ExtensionExpr, Ordered, and Unordered.

Ordered and Unordered seem to fit the pattern we discussed - if the expression is absent, it's equivalent to ().  ExtensionExpr does not fit this pattern unless we change the semantics.

For this draft, we've decided to make the change for Ordered and Unordered, but not for ExtensionExpr.

Jonathan
________________________________________
From: Robie, Jonathan
Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 2:18 PM
To: Michael Dyck; public-xsl-query@w3.org
Subject: RE: decision re optional Expr in braces

I apologize for missing this earlier.


> The minutes say:
>> DECISION: WG has agreed to refactor the grammar using the EnclosedExpr in
>> the node constructors,
>
> *Computed* node constructors, that is.

Yes.

>> but in the case of the element constructor we shall not use it in the
>> first argument because it cannot be an empty sequence.
>
> The same reasoning would apply to any 'name expression', i.e. also in
> CompAttrConstructor and CompPIConstructor.

Exactly.

>> Consider the expressions Try, Catch, Validate, ExtensionExpr, Ordered and
>> Unordered, CompDocConstructor, CompAttrConstructor, CompTextConstructor,
>> CompCommentConstructor CompPIConstructor and Namespace
>
> [Note that this sentence appears in the body of the minutes, but not in the
> collected decisions section at the top.]
>
> The WG decided to *consider* these expressions? What does that mean? I can
> imagine it meaning "the WG decided to consider these expression at some
> later time", or "this action item should be taken as applying to these
> expressions", but either way, it conflicts with the first sentence of the
> action item, which refers to "node constructors". Please clarify.

Consider means that we decided to do this, and would like to ask you to make these changes to the grammar.  I'm responding kind of late, if you can make these changes by Monday then I could make the corresponding text changes in time for the meeting, which would be really helpful.

> Also, presumably "Namespace" should be "CompNamespaceConstructor"?

Yes.

Jonathan

Received on Monday, 2 November 2015 20:56:37 UTC