Re: Done: ACTION A-641-14

On 16-06-07 11:00 AM, Robie, Jonathan wrote:
> Done and checked in.  I used the term “associated expression” rather than
> “fallback expression”.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ACTION A-641-14 on Jonathan and Michael Dyck to agree revised wording to
> resolve the potential ambiguity in the resolution of action A-636-08 as
> described in
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsl-query/2016Apr/0020.html.

(Note that the action item was for us to agree on wording, but I didn't 
agree to that wording.)

It now says:
     An extension expression consists of one or more pragmas, followed by
     an optional expression (the pragma's associated expression).

However, the parenthetical doesn't make sense, because there's no 
antecedent for "the pragma". (There are one or more pragmas.) And a couple 
paragraphs later, when the phrase "associated expression" is used, it 
wouldn't make sense to say "the pragma's associated expression" there either.

If we're going to say "X's associated expression" here, then "X" has to be 
"the extension expression". But personally, I think it sounds odd to refer 
to a sub-expression of X as "X's associated expression" (because 
"associated" is a weak and non-specific word for something that already 
has a strong and fairly specific relation to X).

-Michael

Received on Monday, 27 June 2016 01:04:23 UTC