- From: Robie, Jonathan <jonathan.robie@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:13:32 +0000
- To: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>, Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org>
- CC: Public Joint XSLT XQuery XPath <public-xsl-query@w3.org>
Works for me. MDyck? Jonathan On 6/27/16, 3:46 AM, "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com> wrote: >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 ³associated expression² rather >>>than >>> ³fallback expression². >>> >>> 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 13:14:29 UTC