This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
A.1.1 Grammar Notes (general) "Note" A.1 EBNF says that production comments are normative, but 1 Introduction says that material labeled as "Note" is not normative. "This section contains general notes on the EBNF productions, which may be helpful in understanding how to create a parser based on this EBNF, how to read the EBNF, and generally call out issues with the syntax." If that were all, then they wouldn't have to be normative. But in fact, some of them do affect the language being defined. (And so those probably shouldn't be called notes.) I think 'parens', 'lt', and 'comments' are the only true "notes" (i.e. mere "helpful hints"). Which ones help in understanding how to read the EBNF? That's the job of the previous section. (examples) From A.1.1 to A.2.3, could the examples be put in <div class="exampleInner"> The <code> font is 'monospace', and the <body> font is 'sans-serif', which aren't that easy to distinguish when run together inline. (leading-lone-slash, reserved-function-names, and occurrence-indicators) These notes are actually fairly similar, but this is obscured by the different ways they're written. You might be able to increase understanding by handling them more uniformly. [See a later comment for suggested alternate wording for these notes.]
(Speaking for myself) I think the point about the word "note" is well taken. Perhaps we should replace the term "grammar-note" with "extra-grammatical constraint", abbreviated EGC or something in the comments in the grammar, for the items that affect the language recognized.
(In reply to comment #1) > (Speaking for myself) I think the point about the word "note" > is well taken. Perhaps we should replace the term "grammar-note" > with "extra-grammatical constraint", abbreviated EGC or something > in the comments in the grammar, for the items that affect the > language recognized. I've used the xgc: and "extra-grammatical constraint" for leading-lone-slash, xml-version, reserved-function-names, and occurrence-indicators. The others remain gc: or ws:.
(In reply to comment #0) > A.1.1 Grammar Notes (general) > > "Note" > A.1 EBNF says that production comments are normative, but 1 Introduction > says that material labeled as "Note" is not normative. I think that was talking about a formal Note, but in any case, as noted in my previous comment, I've added the additional "extra-grammatical constraint" and made specific that gn: notes are not normative, and enclosed the grammar-notes proper in a Notes section (part of the W3C xml-spec). > (examples) > From A.1.1 to A.2.3, could the examples be put in > <div class="exampleInner"> > The <code> font is 'monospace', and the <body> font is 'sans-serif', which > aren't that easy to distinguish when run together inline. I can't just edit the HTML, since this is going through xml-spec. I played with some options, but it's just not worth it to spend a lot of time on it.
A joint meeting of the Query and XSLT working groups considered this comment on July 20, 2005. The WGs agreed to resolve these editorial issues as listed in my previous comment. If you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Reopened. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision.