Re: Done: ACTION A-641-14

Perhaps it should be

the pragmas' associated expression

Michael Kay

> On 27 Jun 2016, at 02:03, Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> wrote:
> 
> 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 07:47:33 UTC