- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:04:15 +0700
- To: Michael Dyck <jmdyck@netcom.ca>
- CC: www-xpath-comments@w3.org
Thanks very much for your comments. I agree with most of them apart from the following. > 2.5 Abbreviated Syntax > ---------------------- > NOTE > Replace the "descendant" axis with "descendant-or-self", otherwise the > two paths mean different things in an additional way that isn't really > important to the note. I don't see this. //para means //child::para and so selects para's from descendants; a child of a descendant-or-self is a descendant. > 3.5 Numbers > ----------- > > production 27 > Is there any point to allowing expressions such as --E and ---E? It matches ECMAScript better. > 3.7 Lexical Structure > --------------------- > When an XPath parser divides a character string into tokens, is it > required to classify them according to the RHS symbols of [28]? That's an internal implementation detail. > Personally, I'd prefer to classify them more simply, thereby > avoiding the need to use the special tokenization rules. I think the way it is now makes it easier for implementors to see how to implement it. James
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 1999 09:21:40 UTC