Re: ACTION A-645-07: schema for serialization parameters

On Jun 21, 2016, at 5:24 AM, Abel Braaksma wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com]
>> 
>> I think the whitespace rules of XPath say that this should be legal,
>> since the grammar given in XPath is
>> 
>> [117] URIQualifiedName ::= BracedURILiteral NCName
>> [118] BracedURILiteral ::= "Q" "{" [^{}]* "}"
>> 
>> and neither rule carries the /* ws:explicit */ annotation.
>> 
>> So the new schema makes these values legal.
>> 
> 
> I'm curious, where did you see the production *without* the ws:explicit? Because in XPath 3.0, 3.1 public CR and 3.1 internal CR I see the following production rules (under section A.2.1 Terminal Symbols, the inline rules in the body of the text do not carry the ws:explicit comments, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate):
> 
> [117]   	URIQualifiedName	   ::=   	BracedURILiteral NCName 	/* ws: explicit */
> [118]   	BracedURILiteral	   ::=   	"Q" "{" [^{}]* "}"	/* ws: explicit */
> 
> In other words, whitespace is prohibited for this production.

I see the productions without ws:explicit at:

http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/qtspecs/specifications/xquery-31/html/xpath-31-diff.html#id-basics
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/qtspecs/specifications/xquery-31/html/xpath-31.html#id-basics
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-31/#id-basics

But of course, I was relying on the productions in the text.  The
idea that constraints like ws:explicit should not be given in the
text is new to me, and on the whole unwelcome.  Is there a reason
to omit them from the text?

Thank you, Abel.

Michael


-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com 
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib                 
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************

Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2016 15:30:40 UTC