[Bug 24779] Apparent improper escaping of characters, such as \#x5B in regex pattern docs.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24779

--- Comment #3 from Tom <spectrum777@outlook.com> ---
(In reply to Michael Kay from comment #1)
> I think the rule is correct; it means that SingleCharNoEsc is any single
> character except backslash, left square bracket, or right square bracket.
> (But the prose immediately following says that SingleCharEsc is any single
> character except left square bracket ot right square bracket, which seem
> inconsistent and wrong).

Sorry, I haven't used bugzilla in years and had posted this as a new comment,
not a reply. This is a reply so please excuse the duplicate entry. 

...

You are correct. I was seeing the slash '\' character and expecting an escaped
slash '\\' if slash had been intended. Instead, I saw an escaped '#' character,
as in '\#' ... my bad for this is EBNF outlining how to construct a regex, not
show examples of them. 

Flipping back-and-forth between considering ENBF and actual examples is a skill
in itself for these particular sections. :) 

I opened this 24779 up while my head was wrapped around the issue of bug 24780
which I subsequently opened
(https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24780). On hindsight of both of
these issues (non-issues), my only suggestion is that a "Note:" be placed at
the introduction to the regular expression section which clearly outlines this
difference. I would even recommend showing a brief example which itself
contrasts the difference between a regex definition and a related actual
example. 

The existing "Note:" of this kind occurs way out of context, at the start of
the document, and it's not completely clear what the concern is at that time.
Additionally, somebody wanting to jump to the regex section may benefit from a
"Note:" they'd otherwise miss. When I had read the currently placed "Note:" I
missed the importance by the time I got the regex section because it was easy
to naturally fall into the trap that some of the ENBF were actual regex
examples being used to show sets of characters. Completely my fault in a strict
sense, but this seems like a case where a spec may offer decent payoff for the
tweaking here. I'm not certain what everyone has to deal with in deciding these
sorts of things so no worries if this doesn't meet any bars... all just a
suggestion at this point.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 24 February 2014 09:59:32 UTC