The reason for the notation is that FLWOR expressions appear in XQuery, and For
expressions appear in XPath. The formal semantics serves as one formal semantics
specification for both languages, hence the [For/FLWR] notation.

Perhaps we could reword the first sentence of 4.8 as follows:
"[XPath] provides ForExpr, and [XQuery] provides FLWORExpr, 
which will be collectively referred to as [For/FLWOR].  
[For/FLWR] expressions are used for iteration, ...".

Note that I propose to respell it [For/FLWOR] to align with [XQuery].

I agree we should make sure to respell [For/FLWR] to [For/FLWOR].

We should also explains what that mean. We can do it as you suggest, possibly we
could also indicate this right at the beginning in the preliminaries.

Any preference about how we do this?
- Jerome

(In reply to comment #3)
> I agree we should make sure to respell [For/FLWR] to [For/FLWOR].
> 
> We should also explains what that mean. We can do it as you suggest, possibly we
> could also indicate this right at the beginning in the preliminaries.
> 
> Any preference about how we do this?

If you put it as a general statement in the preliminaries, then it would 
something like "[x/y] refers to something that is called 'x' in [XPath] 
and called 'y' in [XQuery]."  However, [expression/query] is not 
actually called "expression" in either specification; it is called Expr
in both, though I see XPath has XPath ::= Expr and XQuery has 
QueryBody ::= Expr.  Similarly [For/FLWOR] is not actually called For or
FLWOR.  So there is no syntactic transform from [x/y] to its referents.
This good be arranged, but it is probably simpler to just supply a 
definition whenever one of these symbols is introduced.

Fred

The [For/FLOWR] case has been fixed, but this particular comment does not touch
any formal notation. This is automatically generated text for shared
specifications (which FS is). [expression/query] for instance is intended in the
english sense, an 'expression' or a 'query'.

I don't think there is necessity to add formal description of that unformal
written form.

- Jerome