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-note: lt 'A tokenizer must be aware of the context in which the "<" pattern appears, in order to distinguish the "<" comparison operator from the "<" tag open symbol. No. It's completely up to the implementation whether the tokenizer (assuming there even is one) needs to distinguish between different uses of "<". I think this grammar-note should be dropped.
Aside from the use of the word "tokenizer", I think the note needs to stay, particularly since it's the result of a specific WG decision to resolve an issue.
I think the commentator has a point about what tokenizers must and might do. But I'm not sure the note needs to be or should be dropped. Perhaps recast it? Note that "<" may be recognized as a terminal symbol either as a general comparison operator (production [60]) or as the start-tag open delimiter in a direct element constructor (production [94]). Since these two cannot appear in the same places, it is possible to treat these as different terminal symbols distinguished by content; for the same reason, however, it is not necessary to distinguish them in this way. Hmm. Maybe Michael Dyck is correct. I don't think we need mind losing this note, and unless someone can think of a better way to make it say something true and either useful or interesting, we should perhaps drop it.
(In reply to comment #1) > Aside from the use of the word "tokenizer", I think the note needs to stay, > particularly since it's the result of a specific WG decision to resolve an issue. Which decision and which issue?
I don't love MSM's proposed wording. I think there are three alternatives: 1) Use the word "parser" instead of tokenizer" but otherwise keep the note as is. 2) Wait for someone to come up with alternative text that we can all live with. 3) Drop the note. The issue and the subsequent decision was a result of a concern by one of the WG members that treatment of "<" was unclear. I think that was before we were keeping issue numbers, and I'm not going through the mail archives looking for instances of "<". I'm happy with either #1 or #3, slightly favoring #3.
Note I think this issue needs to be decided at the Seattle F2F. I won't apply edits until then.
A joint meeting of the Query and XSLT working groups considered this comment on July 20, 2005. The grammar-note: lt has been removed, and the issue is recorded as closed. 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.