This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 1389 - [XQuery] some editorial comments on A.4 Precedence Order
Summary: [XQuery] some editorial comments on A.4 Precedence Order
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XQuery 1.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Last Call drafts
Hardware: All All
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Scott Boag
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-05-11 07:41 UTC by Michael Dyck
Modified: 2005-09-29 09:33 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Dyck 2005-05-11 07:41:48 UTC
A.4 Precedence Order

It should be clearer whether this section is merely summarizing information that
appears elsewhere, or else is telling me something about the language that I
couldn't deduce from the rest of the spec.

Does it change the set of legal queries?
Comment 1 Scott Boag 2005-07-09 21:20:39 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> A.4 Precedence Order
> 
> It should be clearer whether this section is merely summarizing information that
> appears elsewhere, or else is telling me something about the language that I
> couldn't deduce from the rest of the spec.

I think it's clear enough.

> 
> Does it change the set of legal queries?

No.  This is a sore point for me, I think the section is unnecessary and
redundent.  But a lot of our WG thinks it's helpful, so there you have it.  It
is probably useful for users to have the handy table.
Comment 2 Scott Boag 2005-07-22 19:33:31 UTC
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.  In this case this means not to make a change.

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.
Comment 3 Michael Dyck 2005-07-22 20:54:34 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> I think the section is unnecessary and redundent.  But a
> lot of our WG thinks it's helpful, so there you have it.
> It is probably useful for users to have the handy table.

If a section is unnecessary and redundant, but helpful and useful, wouldn't it
normally be made non-normative?
Comment 4 Don Chamberlin 2005-09-29 09:32:44 UTC
Michael,
On Sept. 29, 2005, the Query Working Group decided to make the following 
changes to XQuery Appendix A.4 (Precedence Order):

(1) "The grammar defines ..." will be changed to "The grammar in A.1 
normatively defines ...".

(2) "These operators are summarized here in order of their precedence from 
lowest to highest" will be changed to "These operators are summarized here to 
make clear the order of their precedence from lowest to highest".

The working group believes that these changes address your concerns about 
defining the relationship between the grammar and the precedence table. 
Therefore we have closed this comment. If you are not satisfied with this 
resolution, please reopen the comment.

Regards,
Don Chamberlin (on behalf of the Query Working Group)