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 1587 - [FS] editorial: 4.2 Path Expressions
Summary: [FS] editorial: 4.2 Path Expressions
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XPath / XQuery / XSLT
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Formal Semantics 1.0 (show other bugs)
Version: Last Call drafts
Hardware: All All
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jerome Simeon
QA Contact: Mailing list for public feedback on specs from XSL and XML Query WGs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-07-14 05:36 UTC by Michael Dyck
Modified: 2007-06-03 06:47 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Michael Dyck 2005-07-14 05:36:51 UTC
4.2 Path Expressions

Introduction
[68 (XQuery)] RelativePathExpr ::= StepExpr (("/" | "//") StepExpr)*
    The Normalization rules (4 and 5) assume a right-recursive production,
    something like:
        ... ::= StepExpr | StepExpr ("/"|"//") RelativePathExpr

Norm / rule 1
    The RHS has to be enclosed in []_Expr because 'treat as' is not in
    the Core language.

Norm / rule 3
[[ "//" RelativePathExpr ]]_Expr == ...
    Delete the quotes.

Norm / rule 3
"treat as document-node"
    Append "()" to "document-node".
Comment 1 Jerome Simeon 2006-03-27 22:31:10 UTC
Fixed as suggested.
- Jerome
Comment 2 Michael Dyck 2006-10-29 22:15:12 UTC
The first point has not been fixed as suggested. I suggested a change to the production for RelativePathExpr, which has not happened. (Understandably, given your aversion to touching the XQuery productions.) Instead, you made changes to Norm rules 4 and 5, which:
-- assume a syntax even further from the given production;
-- break rule 4 (you swapped the nonterminals on the LHS but not the RHS); and
-- make rule 5 harder to understand (in my opinion).

So I think you'd be better off reverting rules 4 and 5 to their previous (20051103) versions.

On the other hand, the two versions of rule 5 give different expansions, and I'm having a hard time deciding which, if either (or both), is correct.
Comment 3 Michael Dyck 2007-06-03 06:47:18 UTC
Re rule 4: the breakage in the 2006-06 CR was fixed in the 2006-11 PR (though not by reverting to the version in the 2005-11 CR).

Re rule 5: the latter expansion (the one in 2006-06 and on) appears to be the correct one. (See also Bug 2720.)

So I'm marking this issue as RESOLVED FIXED, and CLOSED.